[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201017051410.GW2046448@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2020 22:14:10 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V3 4/9] x86/pks: Preserve the PKRS MSR on context
switch
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 01:12:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 11:31:45AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > > +/**
> > > + * It should also be noted that the underlying WRMSR(MSR_IA32_PKRS) is not
> > > + * serializing but still maintains ordering properties similar to WRPKRU.
> > > + * The current SDM section on PKRS needs updating but should be the same as
> > > + * that of WRPKRU. So to quote from the WRPKRU text:
> > > + *
> > > + * WRPKRU will never execute transiently. Memory accesses
> > > + * affected by PKRU register will not execute (even transiently)
> > > + * until all prior executions of WRPKRU have completed execution
> > > + * and updated the PKRU register.
> > > + */
> > > +void write_pkrs(u32 new_pkrs)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 *pkrs;
> > > +
> > > + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PKS))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + pkrs = get_cpu_ptr(&pkrs_cache);
> > > + if (*pkrs != new_pkrs) {
> > > + *pkrs = new_pkrs;
> > > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PKRS, new_pkrs);
> > > + }
> > > + put_cpu_ptr(pkrs);
> > > +}
> > >
> >
> > It bugs me a *bit* that this is being called in a preempt-disabled
> > region, but we still bother with the get/put_cpu jazz. Are there other
> > future call-sites for this that aren't in preempt-disabled regions?
>
> So the previous version had a useful comment that got lost.
Ok Looking back I see what happened... This comment...
/*
* PKRS is only temporarily changed during specific code paths.
* Only a preemption during these windows away from the default
* value would require updating the MSR.
*/
... was added to pks_sched_in() but that got simplified down because cleaning
up write_pkrs() made the code there obsolete.
> This stuff
> needs to fundamentally be preempt disabled,
I agree, the update to the percpu cache value and MSR can not be torn.
> so it either needs to
> explicitly do so, or have an assertion that preemption is indeed
> disabled.
However, I don't think I understand clearly. Doesn't [get|put]_cpu_ptr()
handle the preempt_disable() for us? Is it not sufficient to rely on that?
Dave's comment seems to be the opposite where we need to eliminate preempt
disable before calling write_pkrs().
FWIW I think I'm mistaken in my response to Dave regarding the
preempt_disable() in pks_update_protection().
Ira
Powered by blists - more mailing lists