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: <CAJvTdKmqzO4P9k3jqRA=dR+B7yV72hZCiyC8HGQxDKZBnXgzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 17:41:45 -0400
From:   Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
        "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        "libc-alpha@...rceware.org" <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>, Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
        Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Candidate Linux ABI for Intel AMX and hypothetical new related features

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:13 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:

> >> Regarding error return for allocation failures.
...
>  * vmalloc() can fail (the memory.kmem cgroup limit is probably the most
>    likely place to be exposed to this)
>  * vmalloc() failure in a fault (like #NM) will result in SIGSEGV
>  * vmalloc() failure in a syscall can be handled with -ENOMEM

Thanks for clarifying this, Dave.

We added the explicit-allocate to v5,
which should be on the list by tomorrow.

So the questions are:
1. who calls it -- a call/thread or process?  the application?  a
library -- which library?
2. is it optional, or mandatory?
3. if it is mandatory, what is the best way to enforce it?
4. should we have a "release" system call too?

1. Every thread needs a context switch buffer.  Does every thread make
the system call?  It seems sort of awkward for a library to always
make a system call before doing a TMUL.  It would be functionally
harmless, but it would add latency to an otherwise low-latency
operation.  If some central library does it, and caches that it has
done it before, then it would be ugly, but at least it would remove an
unnecessary user/kernel transition.

2. If it is optional, then v5 is code complete -- because it allows
you to allocate either explicitly via prtcl, or transparently via #NM.

3. If it is mandatory, then we should re-purpose the XFD mechanism:
app starts with XFD armed, by default
if app touches AMX before prctl, it takes a signal (and dies).
When app calls prctl, allocate buffer disarm XFD for that app (exactly
what #NM trap does today).

4. I don't see a justification for a release concept, but it is
possible -- though sort of sticky with possible nested calls from
combinations of apps and libraries.  If that were sorted out by a
central library, then the actual system call on the last release per
thread would re-arm XFD to prevent access until the next explicit
request.  Unclear if it is important that the kernel actually do the
free -- some things might run faster if we keep it around...

Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center