linux-kernel - Re: [v3 PATCH 8/8] RISC-V: Assign hwcap only according to boot cpu.

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: <20190211221325.7244b575@why.wild-wind.fr.eu.org>
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:13:25 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "david.abdurachmanov@...il.com" <david.abdurachmanov@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        "aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        "jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        "alankao@...estech.com" <alankao@...estech.com>,
        "dmitriy@...-tech.org" <dmitriy@...-tech.org>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        "me@...ki.ch" <me@...ki.ch>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        "schwab@...e.de" <schwab@...e.de>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "zongbox@...il.com" <zongbox@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [v3 PATCH 8/8] RISC-V: Assign hwcap only according to boot cpu.

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 12:03:30 -0800
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com> wrote:

> On 2/11/19 11:02 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 20:26:07 PST (-0800), david.abdurachmanov@...il.com wrote:  
> >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 12:03 AM Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com> wrote:  
> >>>
> >>> On 2/8/19 1:11 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:  
> >>>>> +     * We don't support running Linux on hertergenous ISA systems.
> >>>>> +     * But first "okay" processor might not be the boot cpu.
> >>>>> +     * Check the ISA of boot cpu.  
> >>>>
> >>>> Please use up your available 80 characters per line in comments.
> >>>>  
> >>> I will fix it.
> >>>  
> >>>>> +            /*
> >>>>> +             * All "okay" hart should have same isa. We don't know how to
> >>>>> +             * handle if they don't. Throw a warning for now.
> >>>>> +             */
> >>>>> +            if (elf_hwcap && temp_hwcap != elf_hwcap)
> >>>>> +                    pr_warn("isa mismatch: 0x%lx != 0x%lx\n",
> >>>>> +                            elf_hwcap, temp_hwcap);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +            if (hartid == boot_cpu_hartid)
> >>>>> +                    boot_hwcap = temp_hwcap;
> >>>>> +            elf_hwcap = temp_hwcap;  
> >>>>
> >>>> So we always set elf_hwcap to the capabilities of the previous cpu.
> >>>>  
> >>>>> +            temp_hwcap = 0;  
> >>>>
> >>>> I think tmp_hwcap should be declared and initialized inside the outer loop
> >>>> instead having to manually reset it like this.
> >>>>  
> >>>>> +    }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +    elf_hwcap = boot_hwcap;  
> >>>>
> >>>> And then reset it here to the boot cpu.
> >>>>
> >>>> Shoudn't we only report the features supported by all cores?  Otherwise
> >>>> we'll still have problems if the boot cpu supports a feature, but not
> >>>> others.
> >>>>  
> >>>
> >>> Hmm. The other side of the argument is boot cpu does have a feature that
> >>> is not supported by other hart that didn't even boot.
> >>> The user space may execute something based on boot cpu capability but
> >>> that won't be enabled.
> >>>
> >>> At least, in this way we know that we are compatible completely with
> >>> boot cpu capabilities. Thoughts ?  
> >>
> >> There is one example on the market, e.g., Samsung Exynos 9810.
> >>
> >> Mongoose 3 (big cores) only support ARMv8.0, while Cortex-A55
> >> (little ones) support ARMv8.2 (and that brings atomics support).
> >> I think, it's the only ARM SOC that supports different ISA extensions
> >> between cores on the same package.
> >>
> >> Kernel scheduler doesn't know that big cores are missing atomics
> >> support or that applications needs it and moves the thread
> >> resulting in illegal instruction.
> >>
> >> E.g., see Golang issue: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/28431
> >>
> >> I also recall Jon Masters (Computer Architect at Red Hat) advocating
> >> against having cores with mismatched capabilities on the server market.
> >>
> >> It just causes more problems down the line.
> > > IMO the best bet is to only put extensions in HWCAP that are supported by all  
> > the harts that userspace will be scheduled on.
> > Fair enough. Instead of setting HWCAP in setup_arch() once, we can set it only for boot cpu. It will be updated after every cpu comes up online.  
> 
> Thus, HWCAP will consists all extensions supported by all cpus that are online currently.

You must thus prevent CPUs that have a different set of capabilities
from coming up late (once userspace has started).

	M.
-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.