linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: check ucode before disabling PEBS on SandyBridge

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: <1339164785.2507.23.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 08 Jun 2012 16:13:05 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
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, 2012-06-08 at 16:07 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:

> > 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...

Still Dimitri did a patch 938179b4f8cf8 ("x86: Improve Intel microcode
loader performance") to improve the performance of it, so apparently
they do care some.

> > ---

> > 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

> > @@ -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(&microcode_notifier, &fn##_nb);\
> > +} while (0)
> > +
> >  #endif /* _ASM_X86_MICROCODE_H */

But that's ourside of CONFIG_MICROCODE and...

> > 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;

s/atomic_/blocking_/ -- forgot a refresh there..

> >  #if !defined(CONFIG_X86_PAE) || defined(CONFIG_X86_64)
> >  unsigned long mmu_cr4_features;


So that all should build.. weird.. I'll give it a go.


--
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/