linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 01/24] mm: Introduce CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE

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]

Date:   Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:18:11 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        peterz@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        kirill@...temov.name, ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
        dave@...olabs.net, jack@...e.cz,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, benh@...nel.crashing.org,
        mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 01/24] mm: Introduce CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:

> > Putting this in mm/Kconfig is definitely the right way to go about it 
> > instead of any generic option in arch/*.
> > 
> > My question, though, was making this configurable by the user:
> > 
> > config SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
> > 	bool "Speculative page faults"
> > 	depends on X86_64 || PPC
> > 	default y
> > 	help
> > 	  ..
> > 
> > It's a question about whether we want this always enabled on x86_64 and 
> > power or whether the user should be able to disable it (right now they 
> > can't).  With a large feature like this, you may want to offer something 
> > simple (disable CONFIG_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT) if someone runs into 
> > regressions.
> 
> I agree, but I think it would be important to get the per architecture
> enablement to avoid complex check here. For instance in the case of powerPC
> this is only supported for PPC_BOOK3S_64.
> 
> To avoid exposing such per architecture define here, what do you think about
> having supporting architectures setting ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
> and the SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT depends on this, like this:
> 
> In mm/Kconfig:
> config SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
>  	bool "Speculative page faults"
>  	depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT && SMP
>  	default y
>  	help
> 		...
> 
> In arch/powerpc/Kconfig:
> config PPC
> 	...
> 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT	if PPC_BOOK3S_64
> 
> In arch/x86/Kconfig:
> config X86_64
> 	...
> 	select ARCH_SUPPORTS_SPECULATIVE_PAGE_FAULT
> 
> 

Looks good to me!  It feels like this will add more assurance that if 
things regress for certain workloads that it can be disabled.  I don't 
feel strongly about the default value, I'm ok with it being enabled by 
default.