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  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:   Tue, 16 Jul 2019 00:30:09 +0100
From:   Andrew Cooper <>
To:     Nadav Amit <>
CC:     LKML <>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Stephane Eranian <>,
        Feng Tang <>,
        Juergen Gross <>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <>,
        "Pavel Machek" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Drop {read,write}_cr8() hooks

On 15/07/2019 19:17, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 8:16 AM, Andrew Cooper <> wrote:
>> There is a lot of infrastructure for functionality which is used
>> exclusively in __{save,restore}_processor_state() on the suspend/resume
>> path.
>> cr8 is an alias of APIC_TASKPRI, and APIC_TASKPRI is saved/restored by
>> lapic_{suspend,resume}().  Saving and restoring cr8 independently of the
>> rest of the Local APIC state isn't a clever thing to be doing.
>> Delete the suspend/resume cr8 handling, which shrinks the size of struct
>> saved_context, and allows for the removal of both PVOPS.
> I think removing the interface for CR8 writes is also good to avoid
> potential correctness issues, as the SDM says ( "Interaction of Task
> Priorities between CR8 and APIC”):
> "Operating software should implement either direct APIC TPR updates or CR8
> style TPR updates but not mix them. Software can use a serializing
> instruction (for example, CPUID) to serialize updates between MOV CR8 and
> stores to the APIC.”
> And native_write_cr8() did not even issue a serializing instruction.

Given its location, the one write_cr8() is bounded by two serialising
operations, so is safe in practice.

However, I agree with the statement in the manual.  I could submit a v3
with an updated commit message, or let it be fixed on commit.  Whichever
is easiest.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists