[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d15816d6172ea770b63e52443aced5607f1e35c1.camel@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 20:40:33 -0700
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@...el.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@...el.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/26] Control-flow Enforcement: Shadow Stack
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 11:41 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 7/23/20 9:56 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 09:41:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > On 7/23/20 9:25 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > How would people feel about taking the above two patches (02 and 03 in the
> > > > series) through the KVM tree to enable KVM virtualization of CET before the
> > > > kernel itself gains CET support? I.e. add the MSR and feature bits, along
> > > > with the XSAVES context switching. The feature definitons could use "" to
> > > > suppress displaying them in /proc/cpuinfo to avoid falsely advertising CET
> > > > to userspace.
> > > >
> > > > AIUI, there are ABI issues that need to be sorted out, and that is likely
> > > > going to drag on for some time.
> > > >
> > > > Is this a "hell no" sort of idea, or something that would be feasible if we
> > > > can show that there are no negative impacts to the kernel?
> > > Negative impacts like bloating every task->fpu with XSAVE state that
> > > will never get used? ;)
> > Gah, should have qualified that with "meaningful or measurable negative
> > impacts". E.g. the extra 40 bytes for CET XSAVE state seems like it would
> > be acceptable overhead, but noticeably increasing the latency of XSAVES
> > and/or XRSTORS would not be acceptable.
>
> It's 40 bytes, but it's 40 bytes of just pure, unadulterated waste. It
> would have no *chance* of being used. It's also quite precisely
> measurable on a given system:
>
> cat /proc/slabinfo | grep task_struct | awk '{print $3 * 40}'
If there is value in getting these two patches merged first, we can move
XFEATURE_MASK_CET_USER to XFEATURE_MASK_SUPERVISOR_UNSUPPORTED for now, until
CET is eventually merged. That way, there is no space wasted.
Yu-cheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists