Denys Vlasenko <dvlas...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 03/23/2015 04:30 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> +             * They may be about to iret, where they asked us never to
>> +             * deliver interrupts.  In this case, we can emulate that iret
>> +             * then immediately deliver the interrupt.  This is bascially
>> +             * a noop: the iret would pop the interrupt frame and restore
>> +             * eflags, and then we'd set it up again.  So just restore the
>> +             * eflags word and jump straight to the handler in this case.
>>               */
>> +            if (cpu->regs->eip >= cpu->lg->noirq_start &&
>> +                (cpu->regs->eip < cpu->lg->noirq_end)) {
>> +                    restore_eflags(cpu);
>
> In truth, this is not _exactly_ true for irets to CPL3.
>
> If a new interrupt comes right after iret, then
> a new transition to CPL0 will happen.
>
> This means ss:esp will be loaded from tss.ss0:tss.sp0.
>
> Meaning, that the new iret frame may be in a different place
> than the one which was used by iret.

True.  We could check the to-be-restored-CPL and reset the sp.  Instead,
I've added this comment:

                /*
                 * They may be about to iret, where they asked us never to
                 * deliver interrupts.  In this case, we can emulate that iret
                 * then immediately deliver the interrupt.  This is basically
                 * a noop: the iret would pop the interrupt frame and restore
                 * eflags, and then we'd set it up again.  So just restore the
                 * eflags word and jump straight to the handler in this case.
                 *
                 * Denys Vlasenko points out that this isn't quite right: if
                 * the iret was returning to userspace, then that interrupt
                 * would reset the stack pointer (which the Guest told us
                 * about via LHCALL_SET_STACK).  But unless the Guest is being
                 * *really* weird, that will be the same as the current stack
                 * anyway.
                 */

> There is no good reason for CPL0 code to move iret frame around,
> but who knows. As an example, look what 32-bit Linux kernel does
> with NMI iret frames... it's mind bending.

Fortunately, lguest is allergic to NMIs :)

Thanks!
Rusty.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to