linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pti: in pti_clone_pgtable() don't increase addr by PUD

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: <e7740427-ad09-3386-838d-05146c029a80@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Aug 2019 06:57:10 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc:     kernel-team@...com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm/pti: in pti_clone_pgtable() don't increase addr by
 PUD_SIZE

On 8/20/19 12:51 AM, Song Liu wrote:
> In our x86_64 kernel, pti_clone_pgtable() fails to clone 7 PMDs because
> of this issuse, including PMD for the irq entry table. For a memcache
> like workload, this introduces about 4.5x more iTLB-load and about 2.5x
> more iTLB-load-misses on a Skylake CPU.

I was surprised that this manifests as a performance issue.  Usually
messing up PTI page table manipulation means you get to experience the
jobs of debugging triple faults.  But, it makes sense if its this line:

        /*
         * Note that this will undo _some_ of the work that
         * pti_set_kernel_image_nonglobal() did to clear the
         * global bit.
         */
        pti_clone_pgtable(start, end_clone, PTI_LEVEL_KERNEL_IMAGE);

which is restoring the Global bit.

*But*, that shouldn't get hit on a Skylake CPU since those have PCIDs
and shouldn't have a global kernel image.  Could you confirm whether
PCIDs are supported on this CPU?

>  		pud = pud_offset(p4d, addr);
>  		if (pud_none(*pud)) {
> -			addr += PUD_SIZE;
> +			addr += PMD_SIZE;
>  			continue;
>  		}

Did we also bugger up this code:

                pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
                if (pmd_none(*pmd)) {
                        addr += PMD_SIZE;
                        continue;
                }

if we're on 32-bit and this:

#define PTI_LEVEL_KERNEL_IMAGE  PTI_CLONE_PTE

and we get a hole walking to a non-PMD-aligned address?