linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait C0.2 state

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:   Sun, 9 Jun 2019 21:24:18 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] x86/umwait: Add sysfs interface to control umwait
 C0.2 state

On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 9:02 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 03:50:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 3:10 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > C0.2 state in umwait and tpause instructions can be enabled or disabled
> > > on a processor through IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL MSR register.
> > >
> > > By default, C0.2 is enabled and the user wait instructions result in
> > > lower power consumption with slower wakeup time.
> > >
> > > But in real time systems which require faster wakeup time although power
> > > savings could be smaller, the administrator needs to disable C0.2 and all
> > > C0.2 requests from user applications revert to C0.1.
> > >
> > > A sysfs interface "/sys/devices/system/cpu/umwait_control/enable_c02" is
> > > created to allow the administrator to control C0.2 state during run time.
> >
> > This looks better than the previous version.  I think the locking is
> > still rather confused.  You have a mutex that you hold while changing
> > the value, which is entirely reasonable.  But, of the code paths that
> > write the MSR, only one takes the mutex.
> >
> > I think you should consider making a function that just does:
> >
> > wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
> >
> > and using it in all the places that update the MSR.  The only thing
> > that should need the lock is the sysfs code to avoid accidentally
> > corrupting the value, but that code should also use WRITE_ONCE to do
> > its update.
>
> Based on the comment, the illustrative CPU online and enable_c02 store
> functions would be:
>
> umwait_cpu_online()
> {
>         wrmsr(MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL, READ_ONCE(umwait_control_cached), 0);
>         return 0;
> }
>
> enable_c02_store()
> {
>        mutex_lock(&umwait_lock);
>        umwait_control_c02 = (u32)!c02_enabled;
>        WRITE_ONCE(umwait_control_cached, 2 | get_umwait_control_max_time());
>        on_each_cpu(umwait_control_msr_update, NULL, 1);
>        mutex_unlock(&umwait_lock);
> }
>
> Then suppose umwait_control_cached = 100000 initially and only CPU0 is
> running. Admin change bit 0 in MSR from 0 to 1 to disable C0.2 and is
> onlining CPU1 in the same time:
>
> 1. On CPU1, read umwait_control_cached to eax as 100000 in
> umwait_cpu_online()
> 2. On CPU0, write 100001 to umwait_control_cached in enable_c02_store()
> 3. On CPU1, wrmsr with eax=100000 in umwaint_cpu_online()
> 4. On CPU0, wrmsr with 100001 in enabled_c02_store()
>
> The result is CPU0 and CPU1 have different MSR values.

Yes, but only transiently, because you didn't finish your example.

Step 5: enable_c02_store() does on_each_cpu(), and CPU 1 gets updated.