linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP

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: <87r4oloopm.fsf@xmission.com>
Date:	Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:13:25 -0700
From:	ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To:	HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	hpa@...or.com, len.brown@...el.com, fenghua.yu@...el.com,
	x86@...nel.org, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rob.herring@...xeda.com,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
	vgoyal@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP

HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@...fujitsu.com> writes:

> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:35:47 -0700
>
>> On 10/22/2012 02:29 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> As I said, I thought Fenghua tried that but it didn't work,
>>>> experimentally.
>>>
>>> Fair enough.  You described the problem with clearing bit 8 in a weird
>>> way.
>>>
>>> If the best we can muster are fuzzy memories it may be worth
>>> revisiting.
>>> Perhaps it works on enough cpu models to be interesting.
>>>
>> 
>> It isn't fuzzy memories... this was done as late as 1-2 months ago.  I
>> just don't know the details.
>> 
>> Fenghua, could you help fill us in?
>> 
>
> I overlooked completely the fact that BSP flag is rewritable.
>
> I tried Eric's suggestion using attached test programs and saw it
> worked fine at least on the three cpus around me below:
>
> - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4820  @ 2.00GHz
> - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 8870  @ 2.40GHz
> - Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.80GHz
>   - 32 bits CPU
>
> Next I found the description about this in 8.4.2, IASDM Vol.3:
>
>   The MP initialization protocol imposes the following requirements
>   and restrictions on the system:
>
>   * The MP protocol is executed only after a power-up or RESET. If the
>     MP protocol has completed and a BSP is chosen, subsequent INITs
>     (either to a specific processor or system wide) do not cause the
>     MP protocol to be repeated. Instead, each logical processor
>     examines its BSP flag (in the IA32_APIC_BASE MSR) to determine
>     whether it should execute the BIOS boot-strap code (if it is the
>     BSP) or enter a wait-for-SIPI state (if it is an AP).
>
> So this is no longer undocumented behaviour for recent cpus, I think.

The underdocumented bit is the ability to clear the flag.
And of course these are processor specific registers.

> Considering these, I'll make a patch to clear BSP flag at appropreate
> position in kernel boot-up code. OTOH, according to the discussion, it
> was reported that clearing BSP flag affected some BIOSes. To deal with
> this, I'll prepare a kernel option to decide whether to clear BSP flag
> or not.
>
> Does anyone have any comments now? Or please comment after I submit a
> new patch.

I think you are on right track with preparing some patches, and this
certainly looks like worth experimenting with.

At least for i386 the code need to verify you have a cpu new enough to
have an APIC_BASE_MSR, but I don't think that is going to be hard.

Eric
--
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/