linux-kernel - Re: [tip: perf/core] x86/cpufeatures: Add Architectural LBRs feature bit

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: <fb64b207-a933-cbd7-bc90-03f04c6e5444@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Jul 2020 10:09:10 -0400
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip: perf/core] x86/cpufeatures: Add Architectural LBRs feature
 bit



On 7/9/2020 7:00 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/8/20 2:51 AM, tip-bot2 for Kan Liang wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> index 02dabc9..72ba4c5 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>> @@ -366,6 +366,7 @@
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_MD_CLEAR		(18*32+10) /* VERW clears CPU buffers */
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_TSX_FORCE_ABORT	(18*32+13) /* "" TSX_FORCE_ABORT */
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_PCONFIG		(18*32+18) /* Intel PCONFIG */
>> +#define X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR		(18*32+19) /* Intel ARCH LBR */
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_SPEC_CTRL		(18*32+26) /* "" Speculation Control (IBRS + IBPB) */
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_INTEL_STIBP		(18*32+27) /* "" Single Thread Indirect Branch Predictors */
>>   #define X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D		(18*32+28) /* Flush L1D cache */
> 
> Are architectural LBRs useful *without* XSAVE?  

Yes, previous model-specific LBRs don't have XSAVE support, but it's 
still widely used.

Adding XSAVE is more based on performance considerations. It doesn't 
impact the existing LBR capabilities.

I once talked with our virtualization team. They also want us to support 
both XSAVE and non-XSAVE version of LBRs. If the XSAVE is not available, 
we should fall back to the previous MSR method.

I don't think we should make Arch LBR depends on XSAVE.

Thanks,
Kan

> If not, should we add an
> entry in arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c::cpuid_deps[] for this?
> 
> ...
>          { X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR,            X86_FEATURE_XSAVES    },
> ...
>