linux-kernel - Re: Query about IPI as NMI (pseudo-NMI) support patches

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: <86v8ln7bqw.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 03 Jan 2023 17:45:43 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com>
Cc:     lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Query about IPI as NMI (pseudo-NMI) support patches

On Tue, 03 Jan 2023 16:45:04 +0000,
Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> On 1/2/2023 10:41 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Hi Mukesh,
> > 
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 16:44:59 +0000,
> > Mukesh Ojha <quic_mojha@...cinc.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Hi Marc,
> >> 
> >> I was looking similar support mentioned in below patch series.
> >> 
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAFA6WYO0+LQ=mB1spCstt0cNZ0G+sZu_+Wrv6BKSeXqF5SRq4A@mail.gmail.com/#t
> >> 
> >> Wanted to check if there is chance of these patches to land in
> >> mainline ?
> > 
> > I certainly have no intention to merge it as is, specially as there is
> > no good usage model for it other than "but think of debug!".
> > 
> > We have exactly *one* SGI left. If we are going to lose it over such a
> > feature, I'd want a description of how we are going to share it
> > between potential users, and how we claw some currently used SGIs
> > back.
> 
> 
> But, looks like patch will fail if SGI is not available.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1604317487-14543-4-git-send-email-sumit.garg@linaro.org/
> 
> 
> 
> set_smp_ipi_range(base_sgi, 8);
> 
> +	if (n > nr_ipi)
> +		set_smp_dynamic_ipi(ipi_base + nr_ipi);
> +
> 
> So, static SGI allocation still has higher priority than dynamic
> one.  Would you be accepting if we keep it under some
> CONFIG_ARM64_IPI_NMI_DEBUG ?

But why should this thing have priority over other potential features?
As I said above, there are two requirements:

- being able to share a single NMI SGI amongst multiple users

- being able to free existing SGIs in case we absolutely need an SGI
  for some other purposes

In both cases, this is about making the SGI space scale *beyond* the 8
possible interrupts that we have. This needs to be solved to get
something like this in.

And I don't think hiding this behind an obscure "debug" configuration
option that will get abused with out of tree stuff is a good move.
Quite the opposite.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.