linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 25/26] intel_idle/amx: Add SPR support with XTILEDATA capability

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: <eb14ec3c-55be-95a4-605d-92a2f36434f9@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:38:26 -0700
From:   Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To:     "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 25/26] intel_idle/amx: Add SPR support with XTILEDATA
 capability

On 8/3/21 2:32 PM, Bae, Chang Seok wrote:
>>> +static inline void idle_tile(void)
>>> +{
>>> +    if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XGETBV1) && (xgetbv(1) & XFEATURE_MASK_XTILE)) {
>>> +            tile_release();
>>> +            fpregs_deactivate(&current->thread.fpu);
>>> +    }
>>> +}
>> This isn't obviously safe code.  There's a window in there when we have
>> bogus, destroyed FPU register state but where we might be rescheduled.
>>
>> I would assume that preempt is off *somewhere* in this, but it would be
>> nice to make sure of that, or at least mention the requirement for it to
>> be off before this code is safe.
> I can see preempt_disable() in this path:
> 
> $kernel/sched/idle.c::play_idle_precise()
> --> preempt_disable()
> ...
> --> do_idle()
>     --> cpuidle_idle_call()
>         --> call_cpuidle()
>             --> $drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle.c::cpuidle_enter()
>                 --> cpuidle_enter_state()
>                     --> target_state->enter()
>                         --> $drivers/idle/intel_idle.c::intel_idle_tile()
>                             --> idle_tile()
> ...
> --> preempt_enable()

OK, that's good.  Can we comment about the preempt requirement
somewhere?  Or, maybe add a !in_atomic() warning?

Also, should this have something like a fpregs_state_valid() check?  If
the registers are invalid, should this be calling tile_release()?