Re: [PATCHv6 07/16] x86/vsyscall: Reorganize the #PF emulation code

[Andrew Cooper]

On 23/06/2025 1:41 pm, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 04:21:38PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 6/20/25 16:08, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> But, the resulting code is wonky. It needs to do something more like this:
>>>>
>>>> 	if ((error_code & (X86_PF_WRITE | X86_PF_USER)) != X86_PF_USER)
>>>> 		return false;
>>>>
>>>> 	if (error_code & X86_PF_INSTR))
>>>> 		return __emulate_vsyscall(regs, address);
>>> To do this, LASS needs a proper interlink against NX || SMEP.
>>>
>>> If neither NX nor SMEP are active, the CPU does not report X86_PF_INSTR,
>>> meaning that fetches are reported as plain reads.
>> Interesting point.
>>
>> I think the easiest way to do this is just make a cpuid_deps[] entry for
>> LASS and NX. If there's a CPU where LASS is available but where NX isn't
>> available, we have much bigger problems on our hands.
> I am not sure what I suppose to do here.
>
> Sohil pointed out that with LASS we get #GP on vsyscall, not #PF and PFEC
> is not relevant for LASS.

Correct.  That was my mistake originally.

>
> So, IIUC, that's dependency of vsyscall PF on NX. Do we want to disable
> vsyscall on boot if NX is not available?
>
> BTW, why do we even support !NX on X86_64? Is there such HW?

Yes.  Early P4 steppings had no NX at all.

~Andrew