forked from Minki/linux
x86, 64-bit: swapgs pvop with a user-stack can never be called
It's never safe to call a swapgs pvop when the user stack is current - it must be inline replaced. Rather than making a call, the SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK pvop always just puts "swapgs" as a placeholder, which must either be replaced inline or trap'n'emulated (somehow). Signed-off-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com> Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> Cc: Stephen Tweedie <sct@redhat.com> Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6680415481
commit
a00394f81f
@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_irq_save(void)
|
||||
#define DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(x) cli
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
|
||||
#define SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK swapgs
|
||||
#define INTERRUPT_RETURN iretq
|
||||
#define USERGS_SYSRET64 \
|
||||
swapgs; \
|
||||
@ -185,7 +186,6 @@ static inline void trace_hardirqs_fixup(void)
|
||||
* Either way, this is a good way to document that we don't
|
||||
* have a reliable stack. x86_64 only.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#define SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK swapgs
|
||||
#define ARCH_TRACE_IRQS_ON call trace_hardirqs_on_thunk
|
||||
#define ARCH_TRACE_IRQS_OFF call trace_hardirqs_off_thunk
|
||||
#define ARCH_LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT call lockdep_sys_exit_thunk
|
||||
|
@ -1522,6 +1522,16 @@ static inline unsigned long __raw_local_irq_save(void)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
#else /* !CONFIG_X86_32 */
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If swapgs is used while the userspace stack is still current,
|
||||
* there's no way to call a pvop. The PV replacement *must* be
|
||||
* inlined, or the swapgs instruction must be trapped and emulated.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
#define SWAPGS_UNSAFE_STACK \
|
||||
PARA_SITE(PARA_PATCH(pv_cpu_ops, PV_CPU_swapgs), CLBR_NONE, \
|
||||
swapgs)
|
||||
|
||||
#define SWAPGS \
|
||||
PARA_SITE(PARA_PATCH(pv_cpu_ops, PV_CPU_swapgs), CLBR_NONE, \
|
||||
PV_SAVE_REGS; \
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user