linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception

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: <532739810200007800124E85@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:05:53 +0000
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	"David Vrabel" <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@...citrix.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
	"Sarah Newman" <srn@...mr.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling
 #NM exception

>>> On 17.03.14 at 17:55, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 05:19 AM, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 3:33 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>> No, the right thing is to unf*ck the Xen braindamage and use eagerfpu as a 
> workaround for the legacy hypervisor versions.
>> 
>> The interface wasn't an accident.  In the most common case you'll want
>> to clear the bit anyway. In PV mode clearing it would require an extra
>> trip up into the hypervisor.  So this saves one trip up into the
>> hypervisor on every context switch which involves an FPU, at the
>> expense of not being able to context-switch away when handling the
>> trap.
> 
> The interface was a complete faceplant, because it caused failures.
> You're not infinitely unconstrained since you want to play in the same
> sandbox as the native architecture, and if you want to have a hope of
> avoiding these kinds of failures you really need to avoid making random
> "improvements", certainly not without an explicit guest opt-in (the same
> we do for the native CPU architecture when adding new features.)
> 
> So if this interface wasn't an accident it was active negligence and
> incompetence.

I don't think so - while it (as we now see) disallows certain things
inside the guest, back at the time when this was designed there was
no sign of any sort of allocation/scheduling being done inside the
#NM handler. And furthermore, a PV specification is by its nature
allowed to define deviations from real hardware behavior, or else it
wouldn't be needed in the first place.

Jan


--
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/