linux-kernel - Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

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: <CAJvTdK=Lqbzy6bs8qiE8MZ5LSzyZJ-FMUTcNPD4MxYJGEMBW3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:28:27 -0400
From:   Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 12:53 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:

> But this whole annotation thing will require serious compiler support.
> We already have problems with compilers inlining functions and getting confused about attributes.

We added compiler annotation for user-level interrupt handlers.
I'm not aware of it failing, or otherwise being confused.

Why would compiler support for fast-signals be any more "serious"?

> An API like:
>
> if (get_amx()) {
>  use AMX;
> } else {
>  don’t;
> }
>
> Avoids this problem. And making XCR0 dynamic, for all its faults, at least helps force a degree of discipline on user code.

dynamic XCR0 breaks the installed base, I thought we had established that.

We've also established that when running in a VMM, every update to
XCR0 causes a VMEXIT.

I thought the goal was to allow new programs to have fast signal handlers.
By default, those fast signal handlers would have a stable state
image, and would
not inherit large architectural state on their stacks, and could thus
have minimal overhead on all hardware.