linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/TSC: Use RDTSCP

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <d7d04973d6d54a969c9324ab3240b401@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:39:30 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Borislav Petkov' <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC:     Tom Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 4/4] x86/TSC: Use RDTSCP

From:  Borislav Petkov
> Sent: 12 December 2018 18:45
...
> > The property I want for RDTSC ordering is much weaker: I want it to be
> > ordered like a load.  Imagine that, instead of an on-chip TSC, the TSC
> > is literally a location in main memory that gets incremented by an
> > extra dedicated CPU every nanosecond or so.  I want users of RDTSC to
> > work as if they were reading such a location in memory using an
> > ordinary load.  I believe this gives the real desired property that it
> > should be impossible to observe the TSC going backwards.  This is a
> > much weaker form of serialization.
> 
> Well, in that case you need something new.
> 
> Because, the moment you have a RDTSC in flight and a second RDTSC comes
> in and that second RDTSC must *not* bypass the first one and execute
> earlier due to OoO, you need to impose some ordering. And that's pretty
> much uarch-dependent, I'd say.
> 
> And I guess on AMD the way to do that is to stop dispatch until the
> first RDTSC retires.
> 
> Can it be done faster? Sure. And I'm pretty sure there's a lot of pesky
> little hw details we're not even hearing of, which get in the way.

ISTR one of the problems with RDTSC serialising is that it is used
for micro-benchmarks.
So you want to time all the instructions between a pair of RDTSC.
This doesn't work well if RDTSC doesn't wait for all instructions
to have executed.
The serialisation requirements for spectre mitigation are different.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)