Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v17 06/26] x86/cet: Add control-protection fault handler | From | "Yu, Yu-cheng" <> | Date | Tue, 19 Jan 2021 11:36:31 -0800 |
| |
On 1/19/2021 4:04 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 01:30:33PM -0800, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: [...] >> +DEFINE_IDTENTRY_ERRORCODE(exc_control_protection) >> +{ >> + struct task_struct *tsk; >> + >> + if (!user_mode(regs)) { >> + if (notify_die(DIE_TRAP, "control protection fault", regs, >> + error_code, X86_TRAP_CP, SIGSEGV) == NOTIFY_STOP) >> + return; >> + die("Upexpected/unsupported kernel control protection fault", regs, error_code); > > Isn't the machine supposed to panic() here and do no further progress?
Ok, make it panic().
>> + } >> + >> + cond_local_irq_enable(regs); >> + >> + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CET)) >> + WARN_ONCE(1, "Control protection fault with CET support disabled\n"); >> + >> + tsk = current; >> + tsk->thread.error_code = error_code; >> + tsk->thread.trap_nr = X86_TRAP_CP; >> + >> + if (show_unhandled_signals && unhandled_signal(tsk, SIGSEGV) && >> + printk_ratelimit()) { > > WARNING: Prefer printk_ratelimited or pr_<level>_ratelimited to printk_ratelimit > #136: FILE: arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:645: > + printk_ratelimit()) { > > Still not using checkpatch?
Most places in arch/x86 still use printk_ratelimit(). I should have trusted checkpatch. I will fix it.
>> + unsigned int max_err; >> + unsigned long ssp; >> + >> + max_err = ARRAY_SIZE(control_protection_err) - 1; >> + if ((error_code < 0) || (error_code > max_err)) >> + error_code = 0; >> + >> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PL3_SSP, ssp); >> + pr_info("%s[%d] control protection ip:%lx sp:%lx ssp:%lx error:%lx(%s)", > > If anything, all this stuff should be pr_emerg().
I will fix it.
-- Yu-cheng
| |