linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] entry: Add calls for save/restore auxiliary pt

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: <YvLWX4NiqReB5CHB@iweiny-desk3>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 14:49:19 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/5] entry: Add calls for save/restore auxiliary
 pt_regs

On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 08:49:47PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:38:03AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Thomas did a lot of work to make the entry code generic. So I was
> > keeping that work consistent. This also helps to ensure I did not miss
> > any places.
> 
> How about you worry about the other arches when you actually cross that
> bridge?

I guess I miss understood the reasoning behind Thomas' work.  No one mentioned
trying to isolate this to x86 during the PKS review.

> 
> > I don't believe this is correct because instrumentation is not enabled
> > here.
> 
> Why do you have to run
> 
> 	arch_save_aux_pt_regs()
> 
> with instrumentation enabled?

Sorry, that was carried over from the PKS series where I did need to call it.

I pulled this series over quickly to show basically what needed to be done.
But I did not review it for this detail.

> 
> Patch 5 does
> 
> +       struct pt_regs_auxiliary *aux_pt_regs = &to_extended_pt_regs(regs)->aux;
> +
> +       aux_pt_regs->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> 
> only?
> 
> Why does that need to run with instrumentation enabled?

This does not.

Am I wrong that instrumentation begin/end are 0 overhead in production builds?

Ira

> 
> -- 
> Regards/Gruss,
>     Boris.
> 
> https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette