linux-kernel - Re: kexec reboot fails with extra wbinvd introduced for AME SME

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: <CA+55aFzc9eXKOdhS-ygQPbr0_N84d8iE8WbSGOWmpJXr1rvDjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Jan 2018 18:14:40 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Cc:     Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        ebiederm@...hat.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: kexec reboot fails with extra wbinvd introduced for AME SME

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> It does not work with just once wbinvd(), and it only works with
> removing the wbinvd() for me.  Tom's new post works for me as well
> since my cpu is an Intel i5-4200U.

Intriguing.

It's not like the wbinvd really should be that much of a deal.

I think Tom's patch is fine and should be applied, but it does worry
me a bit that even a single wbinvd makes that much of a difference for
you. There is very little logical reason I can think of that a wbinvd
should make any difference what-so-ever on an i5-4200U.

I wonder if you have some system issues, and wbinvd just happens to
trigger them. But I think we do wbinvd before a suspend-to-RAM too
(it's "ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE()" in the ACPI code). And the dmr code
dioes "wbinvd_on_all_cpus()" which does a cross-call etc.

Would you mind experimenting a bit with that wbinvd?

In particular, what happens if you enable it (so it's not hidden by
the SME check), but you move it up to before interrupts are disabled?

I'm wondering if there is some issue with MCE generation and wbinvd
and whatever, and doing it when the CPU is down and interrupts are
disabled causes some system issue..

Does anybody have any other ideas?

                Linus