[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX2Di19atf4+Nx5cCOxbqoFdx+USLJ-WRSBy_Se25RE-g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 12:37:38 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, williams@...hat.com,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, fweisbec@...hat.com,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] context_tracking,x86: remove extraneous irq disable &
enable from context tracking on syscall entry
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 05/01/2015 02:40 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>> Or we could do that in the syscall path with a single store of a
>> constant flag to a location in the task struct. We have a number of
>> natural flags that get written on syscall entry, such as:
>>
>> pushq_cfi $__USER_DS /* pt_regs->ss */
>>
>> That goes to a constant location on the kernel stack. On return from
>> system calls we could write 0 to that location.
Huh? IRET with zero there will fault, and we can't guarantee that all
syscalls return using sysret. Also, we'd have to audit all the entries,
and system_call_after_swapgs currently enables interrupts early enough
that an interrupt before all the pushes will do unpredictable things to
pt_regs.
We could further abuse orig_ax, but that would require a lot of
auditing. Honestly, though, I think keeping a flag in an
otherwise-hot cache line is a better bet. Also, making it per-cpu
instead of per-task will probably be easier on the RCU code, since
otherwise the RCU code will have to do some kind of synchronization
(even if it's a wait-free probe of the rq lock or similar) to figure
out which pt_regs to look at.
If we went that route, I'd advocate sticking the flag in tss->sp1.
That cacheline is unconditionally read on kernel entry already, and
sp1 is available in tip:x86/asm (and maybe even in Linus' tree -- I
lost track). [1]
Alternatively, I'd suggest that we actually add a whole new word to pt_regs.
[1] It's not unconditionally accessed yet, but it wil be once Denys'
latest patches are in.
--Andy
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists