linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] locking/atomic/x86: Introduce try

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 16 May 2022 17:49:36 +0300
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] locking/atomic/x86: Introduce try_cmpxchg64

On Mon, 2022-05-16 at 14:08 +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 21:54 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 6:04 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 9:54 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > > > > > Still, does 32bit actually support that stuff?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Unfortunately, it does:
> > > > > 
> > > > > kvm-intel-y        += vmx/vmx.o vmx/vmenter.o vmx/pmu_intel.o vmx/vmcs12.o \
> > > > >                vmx/evmcs.o vmx/nested.o vmx/posted_intr.o
> > > > > 
> > > > > And when existing cmpxchg64 is substituted with cmpxchg, the
> > > > > compilation dies for 32bits with:
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > > > Anyway, your patch looks about right, but I find it *really* hard to
> > > > > > care about 32bit code these days.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks, this is also my sentiment, but I hope the patch will enable
> > > > > better code and perhaps ease similar situation I have had elsewhere.
> > > > 
> > > > IMO, if we merge this it should be solely on the benefits to 64-bit code.  Yes,
> > > > KVM still supports 32-bit kernels, but I'm fairly certain the only people that
> > > > run 32-bit KVM are KVM developers.  32-bit KVM has been completely broken for
> > > > multiple releases at least once, maybe twice, and no one ever complained.
> > > 
> > > Yes, the idea was to improve cmpxchg64 with the implementation of
> > > try_cmpxchg64 for 64bit targets. However, the issue with 32bit targets
> > > stood in the way, so the effort with 32-bit implementation was mainly
> > > to unblock progression for 64-bit targets.
> > 
> > Would that allow tdp mmu to work on 32 bit?
> 
> From a purely technical perspective, there's nothing that prevents enabling the
> TDP MMU on 32-bit kernels.  The TDP MMU is 64-bit only to simplify the implementation
> and to reduce the maintenance and validation costs.
> 

I understand exactly that, so the question, will this patch help make the tdp mmu work transparently
on 32 bit kernels? I  heard that 64 bit cmpxchg was one of the main reasons that it is 64 bit only.

I am asking because there was some talk to eliminate the direct mode from the legacy non tdp mmu,
which would simplify its code by a lot, but then it will make 32 bit kernel fail back to shadowing mmu.

I know that nobody needs 32 bit KVM host support, but it is useful to be sure that nesting still works, and
doesn't crash the host and such.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky