linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 04/14] x86/rtc: replace paravirt rtc check with platform legacy quirk

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:13:19 +0200
From:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	lguest@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Joey Lee <jlee@...e.com>, Gary Lin <glin@...e.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>,
	Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@...com>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	kozerkov@...allels.com, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 04/14] x86/rtc: replace paravirt rtc check with
 platform legacy quirk

On 08/04/16 08:56, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>> On 08/04/16 08:29, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
>>>> On 08/04/16 02:32, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>>>>> This highlights a semantic gap issue. From a quick cursory review, I think
>>>>> we can address this temporarily by just using a check:
>>>>>
>>>>> void __init x86_early_init_platform_quirks(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>>       x86_platform.legacy.rtc = 1;
>>>>>
>>>>>       switch (boot_params.hdr.hardware_subarch) {
>>>>>       case X86_SUBARCH_XEN:
>>>>>       case X86_SUBARCH_LGUEST:
>>>>>       case X86_SUBARCH_INTEL_MID:
>>>>> -             x86_platform.legacy.rtc = 0;
>>>>> +             if (x86_init.mpparse.get_smp_config != x86_init_uint_noop)
>>>>> +                     x86_platform.legacy.rtc = 0;
>>>>
>>>> No! Why don't you just use the explicit test xen_initial_domain() ?
>>>
>>> Because we don't want to sprinkle Xen specific code outside of Xen
>>> code. What do you think about the second possibility I listed?
>>> Otherwise, any other ideas?
>>
>> Don't try to guess.
> 
> I can only do that given there is nothing at all to tell me what to
> expect here with regards to RTC on Xen guest, if there is some
> documentation that could help with that please let me know.

Only Xen inernals. :-)

> 
>> In case you don't want to inject Xen internals here, just call a Xen
>> function to either return the correct value, or to set all structure
>> elements correctly.
> 
> I like the later as an option, in case there are further hardware
> subarch specific quirks which require internal logistics. What do
> others think?
> 
>> Thinking more about it: why not do that for all the subarchs?
> 
> I originally had went with that approach, but Ingo made the point that
> it would be best to instead move all quirk settings into one place.
> That lets a reader easily tell what is going on in one place, it also
> compartmentalizes the hardware subarch uses.

Okay. Another idea (not sure whether this is really a good one):

Add X86_SUBARCH_XEN_DOM0. As hardware_subarch is 32 bits wide I don't
think the number of subarchs is a scarce resource. :-)

I'd expect other quirks in future might have different settings for
domU and dom0, too.

>> You'd
>> have the specific settings where they belong: in a subarch specific
>> source. Just do the default settings in x86_early_init_platform_quirks()
>> and let the subarch functions set the non-default values.
> 
> This is a rather different approach than what I had originally tried.
> Bike shed thing -- someone just has to decide.
> 
> Left up to me, I kind of really like centralizing the quirk settings
> in one place approach as it means a reader can easily tell what's
> going on regardless of platform in one place for odd settings. I
> prefer this given that we *already* have the semantics over hardware
> subarch in a generalized fashion. We *do not* have semantics for dom0
> Vs domU -- if such a notion is generic to other virtualization

That's not carved in stone - see above. :-)

> environments it deserves consideration to new semantics to deal with
> that, otherwise the callback for handling further quirks is best, but
> I'd also highly discourage such callback to be used.


Juergen