linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] xen /proc/mtrr implementation

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]

Message-ID: <20090515202250.0f1218ef@jbarnes-g45>
Date:	Fri, 15 May 2009 20:22:50 -0700
From:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] xen /proc/mtrr implementation

On Fri, 15 May 2009 16:49:12 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:

> Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> >> /proc/mtrr is in wide use today.  It may be planned for
> >> obsolescence, but there's no way you can claim its obsolete today
> >> (my completely up-to-date F10 X server is using it, for example).
> >> We don't break oldish usermode ABIs in new kernels.
> >>     
> >
> > Sure it is.  There is a better newer replacement.  It is taking a
> > while to get userspace transitioned but that is different.
> > Honestly I am puzzled why that it but whatever.
> >   
> 
> There's no mention in feature-removal-schedule.txt.
> 
> >> Besides, the MTRR code is also a kernel-internal API, used by DRM
> >> and other drivers to configure the system MTRR state.  Those
> >> drivers will either perform badly or outright fail if they can't
> >> set the appropriate cachability properties. That is not obsolete
> >> in any way. 
> >
> > There are about 5 of them so let's fix them.
> >   
> 
> Well, I count at least 30+, but anyway.
> 
> > With PAT we are in a much better position both for portability and
> > for flexibility.
> >   
> 
> PAT is relatively recent, and even more recently bug-free.  There are 
> many people with processors which can't or won't do PAT; what's the
> plan to support them?  Just hit them with a performance regression?
> Or wrap MTRR in some other API?
> 
> > Is it possible to fix PAT and get that working first.   That is
> > very definitely the preferend API.
> >   
> 
> Sure, when available.  We're sorting out the details for Xen, but
> even then it may not be available, either because we're running on an
> old version of Xen, or because some other guest is using PAT
> differently.
> 
> But I honestly don't understand the hostility towards 120 lines of
> code to make an interface (albeit legacy/deprecated/whatever) behave
> in an expected way.

FWIW I think supporting the MTRR API in Xen makes sense.  There's a lot
of old code out there that wants it; would be nice if it mostly worked,
especially at such a minimal cost.  It's taken awhile to get PAT going
(and there are still issues here and there) so having the MTRR stuffa
available is awfully nice.

-- 
Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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/