[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41d1eec58dd54d878710cbb6121feecf@AcuMS.aculab.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 20:26:06 +0000
From: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To: 'Arvind Sankar' <nivedita@...m.mit.edu>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
"nadav.amit@...il.com" <nadav.amit@...il.com>,
"Nathan Chancellor" <natechancellor@...il.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] x86/asm: Replace __force_order with memory clobber
From: Arvind Sankar
> Sent: 02 September 2020 17:08
>
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 11:33:46AM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Fix this by:
> > - Using a memory clobber for the write functions to additionally prevent
> > caching/reordering memory accesses across CRn writes.
> > - Using a dummy input operand with an arbitrary constant address for the
> > read functions, instead of a global variable. This will prevent reads
> > from being reordered across writes, while allowing memory loads to be
> > cached/reordered across CRn reads, which should be safe.
> >
>
> Any thoughts on whether FORCE_ORDER is worth it just for CRn? MSRs don't
> use it, Nadav pointed out that PKRU doesn't use it (PKRU doesn't have a
> memory clobber on write either). I would guess that most of the volatile
> asm has not been written with the assumption that the compiler might
> decide to reorder it, so protecting just CRn access doesn't mitigate the
> impact of this bug.
I'm guessing that __force_order memory reference was added because
the compiler managed to reorder a particular pair of accesses.
However writing to some of the CR (and maybe MSR) has side effects
on other memory accesses - so should really have a full "memory" clobber.
OTOH none of the CR or MSR access are common, and I suspect a lot
are slow to execute (even if not actually serialising).
So a 'belt and braces' "memory" clobber that definitely stops the
compiler re-ordering instructions across the access avoids
any possible unwanted effects.
After all, any such code is really 'assembler written in C'.
David
-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists