linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, nmi: Add new nmi type 'external'

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: <20140507164821.GS39568@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 7 May 2014 12:48:21 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	x86@...nel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	ak@...ux.intel.com, gong.chen@...ux.intel.com,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86, nmi:  Add new nmi type 'external'

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 06:27:46PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 05:38:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I noticed when debugging a perf problem on a machine with GHES enabled,
> > > > perf seemed slow.  I then realized that the GHES NMI routine was taking
> > > > a global lock all the time to inspect the hardware.  This contended
> > > > with all the local perf counters which did not need a lock.  So each cpu
> > > > accidentally was synchronizing with itself when using perf.
> > > > 
> > > > This is because the way the nmi handler works.  It executes all the handlers
> > > > registered to a particular subtype (to deal with nmi sharing).  As a result
> > > > the GHES handler was executed on every PMI.
> > > > 
> > > > Fix this by creating a new nmi type called NMI_EXT, which is used by
> > > > handlers that need to probe external hardware and require a global lock
> > > > to do so.
> > > > 
> > > > Now the main NMI handler can check the internal NMI handlers first and
> > > > then the external ones if nothing is found.
> > > > 
> > > > This makes perf a little faster again on those machines with GHES enabled.
> > > 
> > > So what happens if GHES asserts an NMI at the same time a PMI 
> > > triggers?
> > > 
> > > If the perf PMI executes and indicates that it has handled something, 
> > > we don't execute the GHES handler, right? Will the GHES re-trigger the 
> > > NMI after we return?
> > 
> > In my head, I had thought they would be queued up and things work 
> > out fine. [...]
> 
> x86 NMIs are generally edge triggered.

Right, I meant to say they would be latched.

> 
> > [...]  But I guess in theory, if a PMI NMI comes in and before the 
> > cpu can accept it and GHES NMI comes in, then it would suffice to 
> > say it may get dropped.  That would be not be good.  Though the race 
> > would be very small.
> > 
> > I don't have a good idea how to handle that.
> 
> Well, are GHES NMIs reasserted if they are not handled? I don't know 
> but there's a definite answer to that hardware behavior question.

I can dig around and find out but I would think not.

> 
> > On the flip side, we have the same exact problem, today, with the 
> > other common external NMIs (SERR, IO).  If a PCI SERR comes in at 
> > the same time as a PMI, then it gets dropped.  Worse, it doesn't get 
> > re-enabled and blocks future SERRs (just found this out two weeks 
> > ago because of a dirty perf status register on boot).
> > 
> > Again, I don't have a solution to juggle between PMI performance and 
> > reliable delivery.  We could do away with the spinlocks and go back 
> > to single cpu delivery (like it used to be).  Then devise a 
> > mechanism to switch delivery to another cpu upon hotplug.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I'd say we should do a delayed timer that makes sure that all possible 
> handlers are polled after an NMI is triggered, but never at a high 
> rate.
> 
> Then simply return early the moment an NMI handler indicates that 
> there was an event handled - and first call high-performance handlers 
> like the perf handler.

Ok, I can look into something like.

> 
> The proper channel for hardware errors is the #MC entry anyway, so 
> this is mostly about legacies and weird hardware.

Well, it seems most vendors are going 'firmware first' with the NMI being
the notifying mechanism.  But that is mostly on servers.  I do deal with
vendors that like to generate their own NMI to panic the box (though those
come in as unknown NMIs).

Cheers,
Don

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	Ingo
--
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/