linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] x86/power: Fix 'nosmt' vs. hibernation triple fault during resume

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: <98E57C7E-24E2-4EB8-A14E-FCA80316F812@amacapital.net>
Date:   Fri, 31 May 2019 14:22:27 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/power: Fix 'nosmt' vs. hibernation triple fault during resume


> On May 31, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 31 May 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> 
>> The Intel SDM Vol 3 34.10 says:
>> 
>> If the HLT instruction is restarted, the processor will generate a
>> memory access to fetch the HLT instruction (if it is
>> not in the internal cache), and execute a HLT bus transaction. This
>> behavior results in multiple HLT bus transactions
>> for the same HLT instruction.
> 
> Which basically means that both hibernation and kexec have been broken in 
> this respect for gazillions of years, and seems like noone noticed. Makes 
> one wonder what the reason for that might be.
> 
> Either SDM is not precise and the refetch actually never happens for real 
> (or is always in these cases satisfied from I$ perhaps?), or ... ?
> 
> So my patch basically puts things back where they have been for ages 
> (while mwait is obviously much worse, as that gets woken up by the write 
> to the monitored address, which inevitably does happen during resume), but 
> seems like SDM is suggesting that we've been in a grey zone wrt RSM at 
> least for all those ages.
> 
> So perhaps we really should ditch resume_play_dead() altogether 
> eventually, and replace it with sending INIT IPI around instead (and then 
> waking the CPUs properly via INIT INIT START). I'd still like to do that 
> for 5.3 though, as that'd be slightly bigger surgery, and conservatively 
> put things basically back to state they have been up to now for 5.2.
> 


Seems reasonable to me.  I would guess that it mostly works because SMI isn’t all that common and the window where it matters is short.  Or maybe the SDM is misleading.