linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest filtering

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:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 13:57:49 -0500
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/5] perf/x86/kvm: Avoid unnecessary work in guest
 filtering



On 2/4/2019 1:15 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 11:55:27AM -0500, Liang, Kan wrote:
> 
>> We cannot apply X86_STEPPING_ANY to ignore the stepping. There will be
>> problems for 0-8 stepping for KABYLAKE_MOBILE.
> 
> So why are we even doing this new "interface"
> x86_cpu_has_min_microcode_rev() if even at the conversion stage it shows
> that it is inadequate?
> 
>> I think what we need is x86_match_cpu_with_stepping_range().
>> But I don't think it is worth enabling it just for this rare case.
> 
> Sounds to me like you wanna go back to the drawing board after having
> evaluated all the use cases.
> 
> And yes, I can imagine:
> 
> +struct x86_cpu_desc {
> +       __u8    x86;            /* CPU family */
> +       __u8    x86_vendor;     /* CPU vendor */
> +       __u8    x86_model;
> +       __u8    x86_min_stepping;
> +       __u8    x86_max_stepping;
> +       __u32   x86_microcode_rev;
> +};
> 
> along with the usage:
> 
> INTEL_CPU_DESC(mod, min_step, max_step, rev)
> 
> to make it more elegant.
> 
> Question is, can you have a given microcode revision X applying to
> multiple revisions?
> 
> If yes, the above should work...
> 

You mean a given microcode revision X applying to multiple stepping,
right?
I don't think so. I still think the KABYLAKE case is an uncommon case.


Can we do something as below just for this case?

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index 3eacdf6..d5fba67 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -3745,6 +3745,12 @@ static __init void intel_clovertown_quirk(void)
  	x86_pmu.pebs_constraints = NULL;
  }

+#define INTEL_CPU_DESC_FOUR(mod, start, rev)			\
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC(mod, start, rev),			\
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC(mod, start + 1, rev),			\
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC(mod, start + 2, rev),			\
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC(mod, start + 3, rev)
+
  static const struct x86_cpu_desc isolation_ucodes[] = {
  	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_CORE,		 3, 0x0000001f),
  	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_ULT,		 1, 0x0000001e),
@@ -3763,15 +3769,8 @@ static const struct x86_cpu_desc 
isolation_ucodes[] = {
  	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_MOBILE,	 3, 0x0000007c),
  	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_SKYLAKE_DESKTOP,	 3, 0x0000007c),
  	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,	 9, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE,	 9, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE,	10, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE,	11, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE,	12, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,	10, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,	11, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,	12, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,	13, 0x0000004e),
-	INTEL_CPU_DESC(INTEL_FAM6_CANNONLAKE_MOBILE,	 3, 0x00000000),
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC_FOUR(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_MOBILE,	 9, 0x0000004e),
+	INTEL_CPU_DESC_FOUR(INTEL_FAM6_KABYLAKE_DESKTOP,10, 0x0000004e),
  	{}
  };

Thanks,
Kan