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: <20180118022905.GA2933@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:29:05 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 01/17/18 at 06:14pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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?

Will play with it more.  Actually I found the hang seems happens
in code of arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.S, there is another
wbinvd there as well.

> 
> 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