linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] arm64: Work around systems with mismatched cache line sizes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:04:50 +0100
From:   Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] arm64: Work around systems with mismatched cache
 line sizes

On 26/08/16 12:03, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> Hello Suzuki,
>


>> For faster access (i.e, avoiding to lookup the system wide value of CTR_EL0
>> via read_system_reg), we keep track of the pointer to table entry for
>> CTR_EL0 in the CPU feature infrastructure.
>>
>
> IIUC it is the runtime sorting of the arm64_ftr_reg array that
> requires you to stash a pointer to CTR_EL0's entry somewhere, so that
> you can dereference it without doing the bsearch.

Correct.

>
> IMO, this is a pattern that we should avoid: you are introducing one
> instance now, which will make it hard to say no to the next one in the
> future. Isn't there a better way to organize the arm64_ftr_reg array
> that allows us to reference entries directly? Ideally, a way that gets
> rid of the runtime sorting, since I don't think that is a good
> replacement for developer discipline anyway (although I should have
> spoken up when that was first introduced) Or am I missing something
> here?

I had some form of direct access to the feature register in one of
the versions [0], but was dropped based on Catalin's suggestion at [1].


[0] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/5/504
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/7/558


Suzuki