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: <20120608143636.GG31359@aftab.osrc.amd.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:36:36 +0200
From:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@....com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	<mingo@...e.hu>, <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....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 08, 2012 at 04:20:50PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:15 +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > have a variable which gets initialized to the number of all CPUs and
> > each time ->apply_microcode() finishes by returning 0, we decrement it
> > once.
> 
> > 
> > Hmm, I'm probably missing some obscure case. 
> 
> Since its all per-cpu sysfs muck, userspace could update a random
> subsets of cpus.. leaving us hanging.

I'm afraid I don't understand - when you modprobe microcode.ko,
it goes and loads /lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin (in
the AMD case) on each CPU when the driver gets regged through
subsys_interface_register().

It calls ->add_dev() on each CPU - this should be guaranteed because it
uses the cpu_subsys from drivers/base/cpu.c which onlines all CPUs, I'd
assume.

So, I'd say that once subsys_interface_register() returns, we have
updated ucode on all CPUs, if successful...

We probably could run the notifier at that moment, before we do
put_online_cpus().

> The 'bestestet' idea I came up with is doing the verify thing I have
> from a delayed work -- say 1 second into the future. That way, when
> there's lots of cpus they all try and enqueue the one work, which at
> the end executes only once, provided the entire update scan took less
> than the second.

You're saying, you want the last CPU that gets to update its microcode
gets to also run the delayed work...? Probably, I'd assume ucode update
on a single CPU takes less than a second IIUC.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551

--
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/