linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] perf/x86/intel/lbr: use setup_clear_cpu_cap instead of clear_cpu

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: <YzGlQBkCSJxY+8Jf@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 15:12:32 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
        Jane Malalane <jane.malalane@...rix.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        "open list:CRYPTO API" <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] perf/x86/intel/lbr: use setup_clear_cpu_cap
 instead of clear_cpu_cap

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 11:20:47AM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> If I understand that correctly, the difference between clear_cpu_cap and setup_clear_cpu_cap
> is that setup_clear_cpu_cap should be called early when only the boot cpu is running and it 
>
> 1. works on 'boot_cpu_data' which represents the boot cpu.
> 2. sets a bit in 'cpu_caps_cleared' which are later applied to all CPUs, including these that are hotplugged.

Yes.

> On the other hand the clear_cpu_cap just affects the given 'struct cpuinfo_x86'.

Yes.

> Call of 'clear_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_ARCH_LBR)' is weird since it still affects 'boot_cpu_data'
> but doesn't affect 'cpu_caps_cleared'

Yes.

> I assumed that this was a mistake and the intention was to disable the feature on all CPUs.

peterz says yes.

> I need this patch because in the next patch, I change the clear_cpu_cap such as it detects being
> called on boot_cpu_data and in this case also clears bits in 'cpu_caps_cleared', thus
> while this patch does introduce a functional change, the next patch doesn't since this is the only
> place where clear_cpu_cap is called explicitly on 'boot_cpu_data'

This is not needed - this patch doing setup_clear_cpu_cap() should suffice.

But, there must be something you're fixing with this. Which is it? Some
weird virt config?

> I do now notice that initcalls are run after smp is initialized, which
> means that this code doesn't really disable the CPUID feature on all
> CPUs at all.

Well, not exactly. There's do_pre_smp_calls() which is where the
early_initcall() thing is run.

So setup_clear_cpu_cap() will make sure that the feature bit is cleared
when the APs come online.

Do you have a virt configuration where you can test this case where the
feature flag is clear on all CPUs when it fails?

I.e., "arch_lbr" will disappear in /proc/cpuinfo completely.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette