linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 11/13] x86/resctrl: Add interface to write mbm_total_bytes

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:   Thu, 5 Jan 2023 09:49:34 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     <babu.moger@....com>, <corbet@....net>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>
CC:     <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        <x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
        <rdunlap@...radead.org>, <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
        <songmuchun@...edance.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>, <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
        <jmattson@...gle.com>, <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
        <sandipan.das@....com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        <james.morse@....com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
        <eranian@...gle.com>, <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        <jarkko@...nel.org>, <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
        <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>, <peternewman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 11/13] x86/resctrl: Add interface to write
 mbm_total_bytes_config

Hi Babu,

On 1/5/2023 8:04 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> Hi Reinette,
> 
> On 1/4/23 18:29, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Babu,
>>
>> On 12/22/2022 3:31 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +static ssize_t mbm_total_bytes_config_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
>>> +					    char *buf, size_t nbytes,
>>> +					    loff_t off)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct rdt_resource *r = of->kn->parent->priv;
>>> +	int ret;
>>> +
>>> +	/* Valid input requires a trailing newline */
>>> +	if (nbytes == 0 || buf[nbytes - 1] != '\n')
>>> +		return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>> +	cpus_read_lock();
>> Could you please elaborate why this lock is needed here as
>> well as in the following patch?
> 
> Holding the cpus_read_lock() make sure that this cpu is online while doing
> this operation. This code eventually sends an IPI to write the MSR on one
> of the CPUs using the cpumasks. My understanding is to make sure cpumask
> is stable while handling this write.  Same thing is done in

This flow uses smp_call_function_any() to send the IPI and update the MSR.
smp_call_function_any() itself disables preemption to protect against
CPUs going offline while attempting the update.

The domain's cpumask itself cannot change during this flow because rdtgroup_mutex
is held the entire time. This mutex is needed by the resctrl CPU online/offline
callbacks that may update the mask.

> rdtgroup_schemata_write.

Yes, rdtgroup_schemata_write uses this but please take a look at _why_ it
is using it. This was something added later as part of the pseudo-locking
code. Please see the commit message for the details that explain the usage:
80b71c340f17 ("x86/intel_rdt: Ensure a CPU remains online for the region's pseudo-locking sequence")

Could you please provide more detail if you still find that this lock is needed?
If you prefer to refer to existing code flows there are other examples
in resctrl where the domain's CPU mask is used to read/write registers without the
hotplug lock that you can use for reference:
* Even in this patch series itself, reading of the config.
* When creating a new resource group (the mkdir flow) the MSRs are written with an
  initial config without hotplug lock.
* When writing to the tasks file the CPU on which task may be running receives IPI
  without hotplug lock held the entire time.
* See resctrl flow of monitoring data reads.

Alternatively you may want to take a closer look at where the hotplug lock _is_ held in
resctrl to consider if those usages match this work. Understanding
why the hotplug lock is currently used should be clear with the commits associated
with their introduction because there has been a few bugs surrounding this.

Reinette