linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 04/11] x86,fpu: defer FPU restore until return to userspace

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: <54B5604E.1070403@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:13:34 -0500
From:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/11] x86,fpu: defer FPU restore until return to
 userspace

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 01/13/2015 12:57 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> wrote: On 01/13/2015 12:18 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

>>>> - Task is not current and FPU is in memory. - Task is not
>>>> current and FPU is loaded into some cpu.
> 
>> Same for this one. When the task is not current, the FPU state 
>> will have been saved to memory. If we try running the task 
>> somewhere else, it devolves to "FPU is in memory".
> 
> 
> Isn't there a case where the FPU is in memory *and* in the cpu
> regs? Isn't that how you can skip reloading the FPU after going
> idle and returning?  Is this what fpu_lazy_restore is for?
> Confused.

Indeed, if we end up running the task on the same CPU again, and the
FPU still has the state loaded, we may skip restoring the FPU state.

>>>> Am I missing anything?  (In lazy mode, there are a few more 
>>>> involving CR0.TS.)
>>>> 
>>>> That's five states, plus an optional cpu number.  But we have
>>>> tons of state variable that can express all kinds of nonsense
>>>> things.
>>>> 
>>>> If we asserted that we were in a sensible state and fixed
>>>> the things that exited the sensible states, maybe this would
>>>> be easier to understand and debug.
> 
> Lets see what things we could test, at different points.
> 
> 1) At context switch time, we need to make sure that the previous
> task will no longer have __thread_has_fpu()
> 
> 2) When loading the FPU state, we need to make sure that the
> current task does not have __thread_has_fpu()
> 
>> Examples, any of which may be wrong:
> 
>> If !current, then !TIF_LOAD_FPU

We set TIF_LOAD_CPU on the next task at context switch time,
which is different from the current task. I suspect we can
deal with that exception, though :)

What we can test is that "new" does not already have TIF_LOAD_CPU
set...

>> If switching out a task with TIF_LOAD_FPU set, then !has_fpu

... and that old does not have both TIF_LOAD_FPU and has_fpu.

>> If last_cpu == smp_processor_id(), then fpu_owner == fpu.

Not necessarily, since the task may not have entered userspace in
a very long time, so it may not have loaded its FPU context.

>> If has_fpu, then the task must be current somewhere and last_cpu
>> must be the cpu on which it's current.

Indeed, if has_fpu, then last_cpu must match the current cpu.


- -- 
All rights reversed
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUtWBOAAoJEM553pKExN6DNwIH/2wzfLqqM1V/Asd29nidDUrw
zD7HN//LyWTLjNMfAS4M/rOk3LsbphFBOo2L5BE7CYoNAGEWwKcQi7ld3dDAXeZL
+AkRtzMNEU1NqzrtnpGhABBrn3wBXwr9ldKSlaVQhYUop3q5Hhg8lyo2v+wWKf7y
ULi/RLiERS72tUomFXTE4RT021N2h+tl42jSREEyT0+VqEc7vqTlb5fctsF3VAhS
g48fX/VOYit3rXFU9hPz9m9vnodsEGCapdRxsXaE4xA7lg8dZ5WsaAos2TUwPQYt
EyCbS9z2Yzy1UpySwZudo6OGbQIaugOtgrcCS/cvdvlRb8K4mLe+807MPGmBOGA=
=7wEX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
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/