linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 18/30] x86, kaiser: map virtually-addressed performance monitoring buffers

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: <CALCETrUtnkhURucGJzUsaWP_8mJ1X_axQFfwHmM7gZydP-j+=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 11:24:16 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        moritz.lipp@...k.tugraz.at,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@...k.tugraz.at>,
        michael.schwarz@...k.tugraz.at, richard.fellner@...dent.tugraz.at,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/30] x86, kaiser: map virtually-addressed performance
 monitoring buffers

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2017, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 11/14/2017 10:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 11:31:39AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> >>  static int alloc_ds_buffer(int cpu)
>> >>  {
>> >> +  struct debug_store *ds = per_cpu_ptr(&cpu_debug_store, cpu);
>> >>
>> >> +  memset(ds, 0, sizeof(*ds));
>> > Still wondering about that memset...
>
> Sorry, my attention is far away at the moment.
>
>>
>> My guess is that it was done to mirror the zeroing done by the original
>> kzalloc().
>
> You guess right.
>
>> But, I think you're right that it's zero'd already by virtue
>> of being static:
>>
>> static
>> DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED_USER_MAPPED(struct debug_store,
>> cpu_debug_store);
>>
>> I'll queue a cleanup, or update it if I re-post the set.
>
> I was about to agree, but now I'm not so sure.  I don't know much
> about these PMC things, but at a glance it looks like what is reserved
> by x86_reserve_hardware() may later be released by x86_release_hardware(),
> and then later reserved again by x86_reserve_hardware().  And although
> the static per-cpu area would be zeroed the first time, the second time
> it will contain data left over from before, so really needs the memset?
>

For an upstream solution, I would really really like to see
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED_USER_MAPPED and friends completely gone
and to use cpu_entry_area instead.  I don't know whether this has any
material impact on this particular discussion, though.

--Andy

> Hugh