[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUwG+WUOBnDyYzzf21H70rUTZLkmzyx8u71Lge1ApCRNA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 20:02:15 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/5] x86,fpu: delay FPU register loading until switch
to userspace
On Oct 3, 2016 7:11 PM, "Rik van Riel" <riel@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 14:36 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > Anything else that tries to read task xstate from memory, i.e. MPX
> > and
> > PKRU. (Although if we switch to eager-switched PKRU, then PKRU stops
> > mattering for this purpose.)
> >
> > Actually, I don't see any way your patches can be compatible with
> > PKRU
> > without switching to eager-switched PKRU.
>
> There is one case where the in-register PKRU state matters:
> - user space accesses to memory
>
> There are several cases where the in-memory PKRU state would
> suffice:
> - get_user_pages(_fast) to the local task (could also use registers)
> - setting VMA/PTE permission bits (could also use registers)
>
> There is one case where only in-memory PKRU state works, where
> PKRU is currently simply ignored:
> - get_user_pages to another task's memory
Also __get_user, etc. I don't think you want to start playing with
TIF_LOAD_FPU there. I think tracking PKRU separately and eagerly
loading it with WRPKRU may be the only decent choice here.
>
> Dave, are there major obstacles to making read_pkru and write_pkru
> work with in-memory state?
>
> Would it be better for read/write_pkru to force the FPU state
> to get loaded into registers, under the assumption that if things
> like get_user_pages_fast happens, we will likely switch back to
> userspace soon, anyway?
>
> Would that assumption be wrong with KVM? :)
>
> --
> All Rights Reversed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists