linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] x86/asm: add iosubmit_cmds512() based on movdir64b CPU instruction

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jsT+FtwR8_fbo4npWvE240uUBtyoi_4ZUZc8gi_Q+SuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:50:09 -0800
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc:     Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
        "dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Lin, Jing" <jing.lin@...el.com>,
        "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
        "Kumar, Sanjay K" <sanjay.k.kumar@...el.com>,
        "Dey, Megha" <megha.dey@...el.com>,
        "Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 01/14] x86/asm: add iosubmit_cmds512() based on
 movdir64b CPU instruction

On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 10:44 AM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 09:20:39AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > For those cases the thought would be to have memset512() for case1 and
> > __iowrite512_copy() for case3. Where memset512() writes a
> > non-incrementing source to an incrementing destination, and
> > __iowrite512_copy() copies an incrementing source to an incrementing
> > destination. Those 2 helpers *would* have fallbacks, but with the
> > option to use something like cpu_has_write512() to check in advance
> > whether those routines will fallback, or not.
> >
> > That can be a discussion for a future patchset when those users arrive.
>
> Oh, sure, of course.
>
> My only angle is very simple: if the MOVDIR* et al is only supported on
> upcoming Intel platforms and looking at the use cases:
>
> 1. clear poison/MKTME
> 3. copy iomem in big chunks
>
> I'm going to venture a guess that those two cases are going to be
> happening only on Intel platforms which already support MODVIR*. So
> wouldn't really need to do any generic helpers because those use cases
> are very specific already. Which would make your feature detection a
> one-time, driver-init time thing anyway...
>
> Unless I misunderstand those cases and there really is a use case
> where the thing would fallback and the fallback would really be for an
> "unenlightened" platform without that MOVDIR* hw support...?

At least for something like __iowrite512_copy() it would indeed be
something an unenlightened driver could call. Those drivers would
simply be looking for opportunistic efficiency and could tolerate a
fallback. Just like current __iowrite64_copy() users don't care if
that routine falls back internally.