linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Use global TLB flushes in MTRR code

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:	Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:47:25 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	davej@...emonkey.org.uk, tglx@...utronix.de,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use global TLB flushes in MTRR code

* Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:

> > > It changes behaviour in some minor ways but I don't think it makes 
> > > any difference. PGE only influences TLB flushes (according to its 
> > > specification) and all the TLB flushes still run with PGE 
> > > disabled.
> > 
> > now that i pointed out the difference, your position changed to 
> > "changes behavior in minor ways" ;-)
> 
> The instruction stream changes (more cr* accesses), but the actual 
> flushes do not. [...]

You are still dead wrong. You refuse to realize the _obvious_ and 
_fundamental_ thing that the PGE bit does: it enables global TLBs while 
we change MTRRs!

That would be a completely new and totally untested modus operandi for a 
large array of x86 CPUs. You should read the Intel manual about the 
recommended way to change MTRRs (Vol. 3A 10-41) - it describes disabling 
the PGE during MTRR changes if it's enabled. The primary purpose of that 
is of course to flush the TLB entries - but still it's documented that 
way and the current code does it that way. It would be rather stupid for 
us to do otherwise: we simply cannot guarantee that x86 CPUs that 
implement MTRRs and PGE have no undocumented or _unknown_ erratas in 
this area. It _might_ be fine, while what you say is that it _is_ fine - 
which we simply cannot know. (And yes, there are documented CPU erratas 
related to global TLBs and MTRR's, so this area is far from being an 
unwritten page.)

So i refuse to apply such a pointless and risky "cleanup" patch from you 
to arch/x86 [which increases code size as well], _especially_ given how 
many times i've explained this very issue to you already and especially 
because you continue to mislead about the true effects of the patch.

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