[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <617343212.13932.1510592207202.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:56:47 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
maged michael <maged.michael@...il.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...lladb.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
David Sehr <sehr@...gle.com>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86: Fix missing core serialization on
migration
----- On Nov 10, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com wrote:
> ----- On Nov 10, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com> wrote:
>>> x86 can return to user-space through sysexit and sysretq, which are not
>>> core serializing. This breaks expectations from user-space about
>>> sequential consistency from a single-threaded self-modifying program
>>> point of view in specific migration patterns.
>>>
>>> Feedback is welcome,
>>
>> We should check with Intel. I would actually be surprised if the I$
>> can be out of sync with the D$ after a sysretq. It would actually
>> break things like "read code from disk" too in theory.
>
> That core serializing instruction is not that much about I$ vs D$
> consistency, but rather about the processor speculatively executing code
> ahead of its retirement point. Ref. Intel Architecture Software Developer's
> Manual, Volume 3: System Programming.
>
> 7.1.3. "Handling Self- and Cross-Modifying Code":
>
> "The act of a processor writing data into a currently executing code segment
> with the intent of
> executing that data as code is called self-modifying code. Intel Architecture
> processors exhibit
> model-specific behavior when executing self-modified code, depending upon how
> far ahead of
> the current execution pointer the code has been modified. As processor
> architectures become
> more complex and start to speculatively execute code ahead of the retirement
> point (as in the P6
> family processors), the rules regarding which code should execute, pre- or
> post-modification,
> become blurred. [...]"
>
> AFAIU, this core serializing instruction seems to be needed for use-cases of
> self-modifying code, but not for the initial load of a program from disk,
> as the processor has no way to have speculatively executed any of its
> instructions.
I figured out what you're pointing to: if exec() is executed by a previously
running thread, and there is no core serializing instruction between program
load and return to user-space, the kernel ends up acting like a JIT, indeed.
Therefore, we'd also need to invoke sync_core_before_usermode() after loading
the program.
Let's wait to hear back from hpa,
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Hopefully hpa can tell us more about this,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists