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: <20180125204625.GN2269@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jan 2018 21:46:25 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@...zon.de>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        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>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86/ibpb: Skip IBPB when we switch back to same
 user process

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:32:46AM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> 
> This patch is not ideal as it comes with the caveats that
> patch 2 tries to close.  I put it out here to see if it can prompt
> people to come up with a better solution. Keeping active_mm around would
> have been cleaner but it looks like there are issues that Andy mentioned.
> 
> The "A -> idle -> A" case would not trigger IBPB if tlb_defer_switch_to_init_mm()
> is true (non pcid) as we does not change the mm.
> 
> This patch tries to address the case when we do switch to init_mm and back.
> Do you still have objections to the approach in this patch
> to save the last active mm before switching to init_mm?

I still think the existing active_mm is sufficient. Something like:

  switch_mm()
  {
	...
	if (prev && next != prev)
		ibpb();
	...
  }

should work. Because while the idle crud does leave_mm() and PCID does
enter_lazy_tlb() and both end up doing: switch_mm(NULL, &init_mm, NULL),
nothing there affects tsk->active_mm.

So over the "A -> idle -> A" transition, active_mm should actually track
what you want.