linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/ibpb: Skip IBPB when we switch back to same user process

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: <86541aca-8de7-163d-b620-083dddf29184@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 05:21:30 -0800
From:   Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Janakarajan Natarajan <Janakarajan.Natarajan@....com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/ibpb: Skip IBPB when we switch back to same
 user process

> 
> This means that 'A -> idle -> A' should never pass through switch_mm to
> begin with.
> 
> Please clarify how you think it does.
> 

the idle code does leave_mm() to avoid having to IPI CPUs in deep sleep states
for a tlb flush.

(trust me, that you really want, sequentially IPI's a pile of cores in a deep sleep
state to just flush a tlb that's empty, the performance of that is horrific)