linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor

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: <42CFC548-F8FE-4BD9-89AB-198B2B3F1091@zytor.com>
Date:   Mon, 03 Oct 2022 14:06:30 -0700
From:   "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>
CC:     Ajay Kaher <akaher@...are.com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Srivatsa Bhat <srivatsab@...are.com>,
        "srivatsa@...il.mit.edu" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu>,
        Alexey Makhalov <amakhalov@...are.com>,
        Vasavi Sirnapalli <vsirnapalli@...are.com>,
        "er.ajay.kaher@...il.com" <er.ajay.kaher@...il.com>,
        "willy@...radead.org" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com" <jailhouse-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "acrn-dev@...ts.projectacrn.org" <acrn-dev@...ts.projectacrn.org>,
        "helgaas@...nel.org" <helgaas@...nel.org>,
        "bhelgaas@...gle.com" <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on all hypervisor

On October 3, 2022 10:34:15 AM PDT, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com> wrote:
>On Oct 3, 2022, at 8:03 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Not my but rather PCI maintainer's call but IMHO dropping 'const' is
>> better, introducing a new global var is our 'last resort' and should be
>> avoided whenever possible. Alternatively, you can add a
>> raw_pci_ext_ops_preferred() function checking somethin within 'struct
>> hypervisor_x86' but I'm unsure if it's better.
>> 
>> Also, please check Alex' question/suggestion.
>
>Here is my take (and Ajay knows probably more than me):
>
>Looking briefly on MCFG, I do not see a clean way of using the ACPI table.
>The two options are either to use a reserved field (which who knows, might
>be used one day) or some OEM ID. I am also not familiar with
>PCI_COMMAND.MEMORY=0, so Ajay can hopefully give some answer about that.
>
>Anyhow, I understand (although not relate) to the objection for a new global
>variable. How about explicitly calling this hardware bug a “bug” and using
>the proper infrastructure? Calling it explicitly a bug may even push whoever
>can to resolve it.
>
>IOW, how about doing something along the lines of (not tested):
>
>
>-- >8 --
>
>Subject: [PATCH] x86/PCI: Prefer MMIO over PIO on VMware hypervisor
>
>---
> arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c       | 2 ++
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c       | 2 ++
> arch/x86/pci/common.c              | 6 ++++--
> 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>index ef4775c6db01..216b6f357b6d 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>@@ -460,5 +460,6 @@
> #define X86_BUG_MMIO_UNKNOWN		X86_BUG(26) /* CPU is too old and its MMIO Stale Data status is unknown */
> #define X86_BUG_RETBLEED		X86_BUG(27) /* CPU is affected by RETBleed */
> #define X86_BUG_EIBRS_PBRSB		X86_BUG(28) /* EIBRS is vulnerable to Post Barrier RSB Predictions */
>+#define X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO		X86_BUG(29) /* ECAM MMIO is buggy and PIO is preferable */
> 
> #endif /* _ASM_X86_CPUFEATURES_H */
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
>index 3e508f239098..c94175fa304b 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
>@@ -1299,6 +1299,8 @@ static void __init cpu_set_bug_bits(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> 	u64 ia32_cap = x86_read_arch_cap_msr();
> 
>+	setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO);
>+
> 	/* Set ITLB_MULTIHIT bug if cpu is not in the whitelist and not mitigated */
> 	if (!cpu_matches(cpu_vuln_whitelist, NO_ITLB_MULTIHIT) &&
> 	    !(ia32_cap & ARCH_CAP_PSCHANGE_MC_NO))
>diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
>index 02039ec3597d..8903776284a6 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/vmware.c
>@@ -385,6 +385,8 @@ static void __init vmware_set_capabilities(void)
> 		setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_VMCALL);
> 	else if (vmware_hypercall_mode == CPUID_VMWARE_FEATURES_ECX_VMMCALL)
> 		setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_VMW_VMMCALL);
>+
>+	setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO);
> }
> 
> static void __init vmware_platform_setup(void)
>diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/common.c b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>index ddb798603201..bc81cf4c1014 100644
>--- a/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>+++ b/arch/x86/pci/common.c
>@@ -40,7 +40,8 @@ const struct pci_raw_ops *__read_mostly raw_pci_ext_ops;
> int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
> 						int reg, int len, u32 *val)
> {
>-	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>+	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops &&
>+	    (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO) || !raw_pci_ext_ops))
> 		return raw_pci_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
> 	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> 		return raw_pci_ext_ops->read(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
>@@ -50,7 +51,8 @@ int raw_pci_read(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
> int raw_pci_write(unsigned int domain, unsigned int bus, unsigned int devfn,
> 						int reg, int len, u32 val)
> {
>-	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops)
>+	if (domain == 0 && reg < 256 && raw_pci_ops &&
>+	    (boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_ECAM_MMIO) || !raw_pci_ext_ops))
> 		return raw_pci_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);
> 	if (raw_pci_ext_ops)
> 		return raw_pci_ext_ops->write(domain, bus, devfn, reg, len, val);

Also... any reason we can't just set raw_pci_ops == raw_ext_pci_ops for the case when the latter is preferred, and dispense with the conditionals in the use path? Similarly, raw_ext_pci_ops could be pointed to error routines instead of left at NULL.