linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86/mm: Optionally flush L1D on context switch

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]

Date:   Fri, 04 Dec 2020 22:21:09 +0100
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Balbir Singh <sblbir@...zon.com>, mingo@...hat.com
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        keescook@...omium.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, tony.luck@...el.com,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, x86@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        thomas.lendacky@....com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        Balbir Singh <sblbir@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] x86/mm: Optionally flush L1D on context switch

On Fri, Nov 27 2020 at 17:59, Balbir Singh wrote:
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Flush only if SMT is disabled as per the contract, which is checked
> +	 * when the feature is enabled.
> +	 */
> +	if (sched_smt_active() && !this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active) &&
> +		(prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH))
> +		l1d_flush_hw();

So if SMT is completely disabled then no flush? Shouldn't the logic be:

    if ((!sched_smt_active() || !this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active) &&
         (prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH))

Hmm?

But that's bad, because it's lot's of conditions to evaluate for every
switch_mm where most of them are not interested in it at all.

Let me read through the rest of the pile.

Thanks,

        tglx