linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 09/13] x86/speculation: Reorganize SPEC

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: <2349aa0d-f751-2e79-b0bc-f1d6acae13ef@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Oct 2018 11:25:09 -0700
From:   Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com>,
        Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>,
        Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 09/13] x86/speculation: Reorganize SPEC_CTRL MSR update

On 10/26/2018 10:21 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 10/17/2018 01:59 PM, Tim Chen wrote:
>> Reorganize the spculation control MSR update code. Currently it is limited
>> to only dynamic update of the Speculative Store Bypass Disable bit.
>> This patch consolidates the logic to check for AMD CPUs that may or may
>> not use this MSR to control SSBD. This prepares us to add logic to update
>> other bits in the SPEC_CTRL MSR cleanly.
>>
>> Originally-by: Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>> index 8aa4960..789f1bada 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
>> @@ -397,25 +397,45 @@ static __always_inline void amd_set_ssb_virt_state(unsigned long tifn)
>>  
>>  static __always_inline void spec_ctrl_update_msr(unsigned long tifn)
>>  {
>> -	u64 msr = x86_spec_ctrl_base | ssbd_tif_to_spec_ctrl(tifn);
>> +	u64 msr = x86_spec_ctrl_base;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If X86_FEATURE_SSBD is not set, the SSBD
>> +	 * bit is not to be touched.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SSBD))
>> +		msr |= ssbd_tif_to_spec_ctrl(tifn);
>>  
>>  	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, msr);
>>  }
>>  
>> -static __always_inline void __speculation_ctrl_update(unsigned long tifn)
>> +static __always_inline void __speculation_ctrl_update(unsigned long tifp,
>> +						      unsigned long tifn)
> 
> I think it will be more intuitive to pass in (tifp ^ tifn) as bitmask of
> changed TIF bits than tifp alone as you are only interested in the
> changed bits anyway. 

I will need to then pass the bitmask plus tifn.  I still need to
pass two parameters and it is a bit more work for the caller
to generate the bit mask.  It is not obvious to me that it is better.

Please also document the input parameters as it is
> hard to know what they are by reading the function alone.

Sure.

> 
> Cheers,
> Longman
>>  {
>> -	if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VIRT_SSBD))
>> -		amd_set_ssb_virt_state(tifn);
>> -	else if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LS_CFG_SSBD))
>> -		amd_set_core_ssb_state(tifn);
>> -	else
>> +	bool updmsr = false;
>> +
>> +	/* Check for AMD cpu to see if it uses SPEC_CTRL MSR for SSBD */
>> +	if ((tifp ^ tifn) & _TIF_SSBD) {
>> +		if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_VIRT_SSBD))
>> +			amd_set_ssb_virt_state(tifn);
>> +		else if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_LS_CFG_SSBD))
>> +			amd_set_core_ssb_state(tifn);
>> +		else if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SSBD))
>> +			updmsr  = true;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (updmsr)
>>  		spec_ctrl_update_msr(tifn);
>>  }
>>  
>>  void speculation_ctrl_update(unsigned long tif)
>>  {
>> +	/*
>> +	 * On this path we're forcing the update, so use ~tif as the
>> +	 * previous flags.
>> +	 */
>>  	preempt_disable();
>> -	__speculation_ctrl_update(tif);
>> +	__speculation_ctrl_update(~tif, tif);
>>  	preempt_enable();
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -451,8 +471,7 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p,
>>  	if ((tifp ^ tifn) & _TIF_NOCPUID)
>>  		set_cpuid_faulting(!!(tifn & _TIF_NOCPUID));
>>  
>> -	if ((tifp ^ tifn) & _TIF_SSBD)
>> -		__speculation_ctrl_update(tifn);
>> +	__speculation_ctrl_update(tifp, tifn);
>>  }
>>  
>>  /*
> 
>