| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CABPqkBQprykpCH=A4VQhNAc2j8JQm3Z0d_EV=Nb3bV1QZ_++nw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:07:43 +0200
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
andi@...stfloor.org, mingo@...e.hu, ming.m.lin@...el.com,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>,
Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@....com>,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: check ucode before disabling PEBS on SandyBridge
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 12:00 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > Or we could put a hook in the ucode loader.
>> >
>> > I'd really suggest the latter - I doubt this will be our only
>> > ucode dependent quirk, going forward ...
>>
>> Yeah, am in the middle of writing that..
>
> OK so the micro-code stuff is a complete trainwreck.
>
> The very worst is that it does per-cpu micro-code updates, not machine
> wide. This results in it being able to have different revisions on
> different cpus. This in turn makes the below O(n^2) :/
>
But it's not like this is a frequent operation either...
> The biggest problem is finding when the minimum revision changes, at
> best this is a n log n sorting problem due to the per-cpu setup, but I
> couldn't be arsed to implement a tree or anything fancy since it all
> stinks anyway.
>
> Why do we have per-cpu firmware anyway?
>
> Anyway, I have the below in two patches, but I thought to first post the
> entire mess since if anybody has a better idea I'm all ears.
>
> It does work though..
>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h | 12 ++++++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c | 14 +++----
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++----
> arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 5 +++
> 8 files changed, 132 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
> index 4ebe157..1cd2dc5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
> @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ struct microcode_ops {
>
> struct ucode_cpu_info {
> struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
> + int new_rev;
> int valid;
> void *mc;
> };
> @@ -63,4 +64,15 @@ static inline struct microcode_ops * __init init_amd_microcode(void)
> static inline void __exit exit_amd_microcode(void) {}
> #endif
>
> +extern struct blocking_notifier_head microcode_notifier;
> +
That is a problem because microcode can be compiled as a module.
When I tried compiling your patch I got undefined for this notifier because
I have microcode update as a module...
> +#define MICROCODE_CAN_UPDATE 0x01
> +#define MICROCODE_UPDATED 0x02
> +
> +#define microcode_notifier(fn) \
> +do { \
> + static struct notifier_block fn##_nb ={ .notifier_call = fn }; \
> + blocking_notifier_chain_register(µcode_notifier, &fn##_nb);\
> +} while (0)
> +
> #endif /* _ASM_X86_MICROCODE_H */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> index 000a474..d3ef86c1 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
> @@ -377,7 +377,7 @@ int x86_pmu_hw_config(struct perf_event *event)
> int precise = 0;
>
> /* Support for constant skid */
> - if (x86_pmu.pebs_active) {
> + if (x86_pmu.pebs_active && !x86_pmu.pebs_broken) {
> precise++;
>
> /* Support for IP fixup */
> @@ -1677,9 +1677,9 @@ static struct pmu pmu = {
> .pmu_enable = x86_pmu_enable,
> .pmu_disable = x86_pmu_disable,
>
> - .attr_groups = x86_pmu_attr_groups,
> + .attr_groups = x86_pmu_attr_groups,
>
> - .event_init = x86_pmu_event_init,
> + .event_init = x86_pmu_event_init,
>
> .add = x86_pmu_add,
> .del = x86_pmu_del,
> @@ -1687,11 +1687,11 @@ static struct pmu pmu = {
> .stop = x86_pmu_stop,
> .read = x86_pmu_read,
>
> - .start_txn = x86_pmu_start_txn,
> - .cancel_txn = x86_pmu_cancel_txn,
> - .commit_txn = x86_pmu_commit_txn,
> + .start_txn = x86_pmu_start_txn,
> + .cancel_txn = x86_pmu_cancel_txn,
> + .commit_txn = x86_pmu_commit_txn,
>
> - .event_idx = x86_pmu_event_idx,
> + .event_idx = x86_pmu_event_idx,
> .flush_branch_stack = x86_pmu_flush_branch_stack,
> };
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> index 3df3de9..a5ecfe8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.h
> @@ -373,7 +373,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
> * Intel DebugStore bits
> */
> int bts, pebs;
> - int bts_active, pebs_active;
> + int bts_active, pebs_active, pebs_broken;
> int pebs_record_size;
> void (*drain_pebs)(struct pt_regs *regs);
> struct event_constraint *pebs_constraints;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> index 5ec146c..bde86cf 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>
> #include <asm/hardirq.h>
> #include <asm/apic.h>
> +#include <asm/microcode.h>
>
> #include "perf_event.h"
>
> @@ -1714,11 +1715,67 @@ static __init void intel_clovertown_quirk(void)
> x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = NULL;
> }
>
> +static const u32 snb_ucode_rev = 0x28;
> +
That needs to be a per CPU model value. It
is not the same for SNB vs. SNB-EP. On EP
it may even depends on stepping.
> +static void intel_snb_verify_ucode(void)
> +{
> + u32 rev = UINT_MAX;
> + int pebs_broken = 0;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + get_online_cpus();
> + /*
> + * Because the microcode loader is bloody stupid and allows different
> + * revisions per cpu and does strictly per-cpu loading, we now have to
> + * check all cpus to determine the minimally installed revision.
> + *
> + * This makes updating the microcode O(n^2) in the number of CPUs :/
> + */
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + rev = min(cpu_data(cpu).microcode, rev);
> + put_online_cpus();
> +
> + pebs_broken = (rev < snb_ucode_rev);
> +
> + if (pebs_broken == x86_pmu.pebs_broken)
> + return;
> +
> + /*
> + * Serialized by the microcode lock..
> + */
> + if (x86_pmu.pebs_broken) {
> + pr_info("PEBS enabled due to micro-code update\n");
> + x86_pmu.pebs_broken = 0;
> + } else {
> + pr_info("PEBS disabled due to CPU errata, "
> + "please upgrade micro-code to at least %x (current: %x)\n",
> + snb_ucode_rev, rev);
> + x86_pmu.pebs_broken = 1;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static int intel_snb_ucode_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
> + unsigned long action, void *_uci)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Since ucode cannot be down-graded, and no future ucode revision
> + * is known to break PEBS again, we're ok with MICROCODE_CAN_UPDATE.
> + */
> +
> + if (action == MICROCODE_UPDATED)
> + intel_snb_verify_ucode();
> +
> + return NOTIFY_DONE;
> +}
> +
> static __init void intel_sandybridge_quirk(void)
> {
> - pr_warn("PEBS disabled due to CPU errata\n");
> - x86_pmu.pebs = 0;
> - x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = NULL;
> + intel_snb_verify_ucode();
> + /*
> + * we're still single threaded, so while there's a hole here,
> + * you can't trigger it.
> + */
> + microcode_notifier(intel_snb_ucode_notifier);
> }
>
> static const struct { int id; char *name; } intel_arch_events_map[] __initconst = {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> index 8a2ce8f..265831e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
> @@ -294,6 +294,7 @@ generic_load_microcode(int cpu, const u8 *data, size_t size)
> }
>
> out_ok:
> + uci->new_rev = new_rev;
> uci->mc = new_mc;
> state = UCODE_OK;
> pr_debug("CPU%d update ucode (0x%08x -> 0x%08x)\n",
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> index fbdfc69..a6cad81 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> @@ -167,15 +167,43 @@ static void apply_microcode_local(void *arg)
> ctx->err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(smp_processor_id());
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Call the notifier chain before we update to verify we can indeed
> + * update to the desired revision.
> + */
> +
> +static int microcode_notifier_check(struct ucode_cpu_info *uci)
> +{
> + int ret = blocking_notifier_call_chain(µcode_notifier,
> + MICROCODE_CAN_UPDATE, uci);
> + return notifier_to_errno(ret);
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Call the notifier chain after we've updated to
> + */
> +
> +static void microcode_notifier_done(void)
> +{
> + blocking_notifier_call_chain(µcode_notifier, MICROCODE_UPDATED, NULL);
> +}
> +
> static int apply_microcode_on_target(int cpu)
> {
> struct apply_microcode_ctx ctx = { .err = 0 };
> int ret;
>
> + ret = microcode_notifier_check(ucode_cpu_info + cpu);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, apply_microcode_local, &ctx, 1);
> if (!ret)
> ret = ctx.err;
>
> + if (!ret)
> + microcode_notifier_done();
> +
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -196,8 +224,11 @@ static int do_microcode_update(const void __user *buf, size_t size)
> if (ustate == UCODE_ERROR) {
> error = -1;
> break;
> - } else if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
> - apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + } else if (ustate == UCODE_OK) {
> + error = apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + if (error)
> + break;
> + }
> }
>
> return error;
> @@ -282,11 +313,12 @@ static int reload_for_cpu(int cpu)
> enum ucode_state ustate;
>
> ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(cpu, µcode_pdev->dev);
> - if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
> - apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> - else
> + if (ustate == UCODE_OK) {
> + err = apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + } else {
> if (ustate == UCODE_ERROR)
> err = -EINVAL;
> + }
> }
> mutex_unlock(µcode_mutex);
>
> @@ -361,14 +393,15 @@ static void microcode_fini_cpu(int cpu)
> static enum ucode_state microcode_resume_cpu(int cpu)
> {
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
> + int err;
>
> if (!uci->mc)
> return UCODE_NFOUND;
>
> pr_debug("CPU%d updated upon resume\n", cpu);
> - apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + err = apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
>
> - return UCODE_OK;
> + return !err ? UCODE_OK : UCODE_ERROR;
> }
>
> static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
> @@ -385,8 +418,12 @@ static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
> ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(cpu, µcode_pdev->dev);
>
> if (ustate == UCODE_OK) {
> + int err;
> +
> pr_debug("CPU%d updated upon init\n", cpu);
> - apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + err = apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
> + if (err)
> + ustate = UCODE_ERROR;
> }
>
> return ustate;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
> index 0327e2b..6b87bd5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
> @@ -391,6 +391,7 @@ static enum ucode_state generic_load_microcode(int cpu, void *data, size_t size,
> }
>
> vfree(uci->mc);
> + uci->new_rev = new_rev;
> uci->mc = (struct microcode_intel *)new_mc;
>
> pr_debug("CPU%d found a matching microcode update with version 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n",
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index f4b9b80..98b5b5c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,7 @@
> #include <linux/percpu.h>
> #include <linux/crash_dump.h>
> #include <linux/tboot.h>
> +#include <linux/notifier.h>
>
> #include <video/edid.h>
>
> @@ -205,6 +206,10 @@ struct cpuinfo_x86 boot_cpu_data __read_mostly = {
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(boot_cpu_data);
> #endif
>
> +/*
> + * Lives here because the microcode stuff is modular.
> + */
> +struct atomic_notifier_head microcode_notifier;
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_X86_PAE) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
> unsigned long mmu_cr4_features;
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists