linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 03/14] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with mismatched EL0 support

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: <9de8639549040b4478b312503fd5a23f@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:16:35 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@....com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/14] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with
 mismatched EL0 support

On 2020-11-27 17:24, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Friday 27 Nov 2020 at 17:14:11 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote:

[...]

>> Yeah, the sanitized read feels better, if only because that is
>> what we are going to read in all the valid cases, unfortunately.
>> read_sanitised_ftr_reg() is sadly not designed to be called on
>> a fast path, meaning that 32bit guests will do a bsearch() on
>> the ID-regs every time they exit...
>> 
>> I guess we will have to evaluate how much we loose with this.
> 
> Could we use the trick we have for arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0 to speed this
> up?

Maybe. I want to first verify whether this has any measurable impact.
Another possibility would be to cache the last read_sanitised_ftr_reg()
access, just to see if that helps. There shouldn't be that many code
paths hammering it.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...