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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CALCETrW6QgD4SLo7S+b+MgX4X4w1wAv1oJoi8px_q4+XGydyOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 15 Dec 2018 10:53:32 -0800
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        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

On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 5:39 AM David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

If you're benchmarking with that level of detail, you're probably
doing RDTSC directly instead of using the vDSO.  Or, even better,
RDPMC.