Message-ID: <2BF12EDA-89F0-40F7-B63E-50ADD0262164@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 13 Aug 2021 08:04:54 +0000
From:   "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     "Lutomirski, Andy" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "Macieira, Thiago" <thiago.macieira@...el.com>,
        "Liu, Jing2" <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
        "Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 08/26] x86/fpu/xstate: Introduce helpers to manage the
 XSTATE buffer dynamically

On Aug 12, 2021, at 12:44, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 07:59:39AM -0700, Chang S. Bae wrote:
>> 
>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/trace/fpu.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/trace/fpu.h
>> @@ -89,6 +89,11 @@ DEFINE_EVENT(x86_fpu, x86_fpu_xstate_check_failed,
>> 	TP_ARGS(fpu)
>> );
>> 
>> +DEFINE_EVENT(x86_fpu, x86_fpu_xstate_alloc_failed,
>> +	TP_PROTO(struct fpu *fpu),
>> +	TP_ARGS(fpu)
> 
> Last time I said:
> 
> "Yes, add it when it is really needed. Not slapping it proactively and
> hoping for any potential usage."
> 
> Why is that thing still here?!

There was no clear path to emit the error code before. I thought that’s the
reason for this tracepoint. But now a signal or an error code return is
established. I should have removed it along with the change.

>> + * @mask:	This bitmap tells which components reserved in the buffer.
> 
> are reserved?
> 
> What's this notion of reservation here? The mask is dictating what gets
> reserved in the buffer or what?
> 
> Looking at the usage, that mask is simply saying which components are
> going to be saved in the buffer. So all this "reserved" bla is only
> confusing - drop it.

Okay. I remember this “reserved” started from a changelog. With your
confusion, let me also make sure all is removed.

>> + *
>> + * Available once those arrays for the offset, size, and alignment info are
>> + * set up, by setup_xstate_features().
>> + *
>> + * Returns:	The buffer size
>> + */
>> +unsigned int get_xstate_size(u64 mask)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned int size;
>> +	int i, nr;
>> +
>> +	if (!mask)
>> +		return 0;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The minimum buffer size excludes the dynamic user state. When a
>> +	 * task uses the state, the buffer can grow up to the max size.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (mask == (xfeatures_mask_all & ~xfeatures_mask_user_dynamic))
>> +		return get_xstate_config(XSTATE_MIN_SIZE);
>> +	else if (mask == xfeatures_mask_all)
>> +		return get_xstate_config(XSTATE_MAX_SIZE);
>> +
>> +	nr = fls64(mask) - 1;
>> +
>> +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_XSAVES))
> 
> cpu_feature_enabled()
> 
>> +		return xstate_offsets[nr] + xstate_sizes[nr];
> 
> From all the superfluous commenting, where a comment is really needed is
> here but there's none.
> 
> What's that doing? No compacted states enabled so take the offset and
> size of the *last* state and use that as the buffer size?

Yes, each state offset in the non-compacted format is fixed in a machine
regardless of RFBM. So, simply take the size like that.

>> +
>> +	if ((xfeatures_mask_all & (BIT_ULL(nr + 1) - 1)) == mask)
> 				  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> That thing looks like a GENMASK_ULL() thing. Use it?

Looks like I was not familiar with this macro:
   if ((xfeatures_mask_all & GENMASK_ULL(nr, 0)) == mask)

> Also, what is that test doing?!
> 
> If a mask up to nr ANDed with mask_all is == mask?!
> 
> You need to explain yourself a lot more here what you're doing. Why
> those two special cases if you can simply iterate over the extended
> states and be done with it? Except maybe the first two special cases
> which are trivial...

xstate_comp_offset[] comes from the compacted format with xfeatures_mask_all.
If feature bits are all the same up to ‘nr', this recorded offset can be taken.

But it might be better to simplify this hunk for readability. I suspect its
call sites are not that performance-critical.

>> @@ -848,6 +908,9 @@ void __init fpu__init_system_xstate(void)
>> 	if (err)
>> 		goto out_disable;
>> 
>> +	/* Make sure init_task does not include the dynamic user states. */
> 
> My constant review question: why?

Every task’s state_mask should begin as aligned with the default buffer.
fpu_clone() sets this for all, except init_task.
Maybe:
    “Make sure init_task’s state_mask aligned with its __default_state"

>> +	current->thread.fpu.state_mask = (xfeatures_mask_all & ~xfeatures_mask_user_dynamic);


>> +
>> +/**
>> + * alloc_xstate_buffer - Allocate a buffer with the size calculated from
> 
> This name doesn't even begin to tell me that this function deals with
> enlarging the xstate buffer with dynamic states. How is the caller
> supposed to know?

How about enlarge_xstate_buffer() or realloc_xstate_buffer()?

> 
> Also, you need to move all possible xfeatures_mask_user_dynamic querying
> inside it so that its user doesn't have to do it. I'm looking at the
> callsite in xstateregs_set().

The query is intended to check whether the xstate buffer is fully expanded or
not -- no need to enlarge.

If the buffer is already the maximum, the code to retrieve XSTATE_BV, this
call, etc should be skipped there.  

If the query is moved here, I guess this call site code becomes a bit ugly.

> The other callsite in exc_device_not_available() seems to not check the
> dynamic states but uses only XFD. I guess I'll parse that properly when
> I get there but right now I have no clue why you're not checking the
> dynamic mask there.

In this case, I think it makes sense to move it in this function. But not
clear how well adjust the above case yet.

>> +int alloc_xstate_buffer(struct fpu *fpu, u64 mask)
>> +{
>> +	union fpregs_state *state;
>> +	unsigned int oldsz, newsz;
>> +	u64 state_mask;
>> +
>> +	state_mask = fpu->state_mask | mask;
>> +
>> +	oldsz = get_xstate_size(fpu->state_mask);
>> +	newsz = get_xstate_size(state_mask);
>> +
>> +	if (oldsz >= newsz)
>> +		return 0;
> 
> Why?
> 
> Why not simply:
> 
> 	if (fpu->state_mask == mask)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	/* vzalloc */
> 
> 	/* free the old buffer */
> 	free_xstate_buffer(fpu);
> 
> 	fpu->state = state;
> 	...
> 
> ?
> 
> Our FPU code is a mess - you should try not to make it an even bigger
> one without a good reason.

Okay, maybe get_xstate_size() is overkill. But I think a sanity-check like
this:
    if ((mask & fpu->state_mask) == mask) 
        return 0; 

>> +
>> +	state = vzalloc(newsz);
>> +	if (!state) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * When allocation requested from #NM, the error code may
>> +		 * not be populated well. Then, this tracepoint is useful
>> +		 * for providing the failure context.
>> +		 */
>> +		trace_x86_fpu_xstate_alloc_failed(fpu);
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
> 
> What happens with the old buffer here? It seems we leak it…

No, it is still pointed by fpu->state and will be freed in the exit path.

Thanks,
Chang

Powered by blists - more mailing lists