linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/18] x86/intel_rdt: Add Haswell feature discovery

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: <20161009170936.GC7672@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Sun, 9 Oct 2016 10:09:37 -0700
From:   Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@...el.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/18] x86/intel_rdt: Add Haswell feature discovery

On Sun, Oct 09, 2016 at 01:41:16PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 07:45:52PM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > From: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
> > 
> > Some Haswell generation CPUs support RDT, but they don't enumerate this
> > using CPUID.  Use rdmsr_safe() and wrmsr_safe() to probe the MSRs on
> > cpu model 63 (INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_X)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c             |  2 +-
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt_common.h |  6 ++++++
> >  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.c         | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt_common.h
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static inline bool cache_alloc_hsw_probe(void)
> > +{
> > +	u32 l, h_old, h_new, h_tmp;
> > +
> > +	if (rdmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, &l, &h_old))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Default value is always 0 if feature is present.
> > +	 */
> > +	h_tmp = h_old ^ 0x1U;
> > +	if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, l, h_tmp))
> 
> I don't understand - you do the family/model check below and yet still
> use the _safe() variants. Isn't the presence of that MSR guaranteed on
> those machines?

The MSR is not guaranteed on every stepping of the family and model machine
because some parts may have the MSR fused off. And some bits in the MSR
may not be implemented on some parts. And in KVM or guest, the MSR may not
implemented. Those are reasons why we use wrmsr_safe/rdmsr_safe in Haswell
probe.

Thanks.

-Fenghua