linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH linux-next 2/2] x86/xen/time: cleanup xen_tsc_safe

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: <20230221172200.GB1958@templeofstupid.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Feb 2023 09:22:00 -0800
From:   Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Krister Johansen <kjlx@...pleofstupid.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>,
        David Reaver <me@...idreaver.com>,
        Brendan Gregg <brendan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next 2/2] x86/xen/time: cleanup
 xen_tsc_safe_clocksource

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:47:24AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 21.02.23 06:51, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 08:14:40PM -0800, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:01:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 20 2023 at 09:17, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > > > @@ -495,8 +496,7 @@ static int __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> > > > >   	/* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> > > > >   	cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > > > -	/* tsc_mode = no_emulate (2) */
> > > > > -	if (ebx != 2)
> > > > > +	if (ebx != XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE)
> > > > >   		return 0;
> > > > >   	return 1;
> > > > 
> > > > What about removing more stupidity from that function?
> > > > 
> > > > static bool __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> > > > {
> > > > 	u32 eax, ebx. ecx, edx;
> > > > 	/* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> > > > 	cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > > 
> > > > 	return ebx == XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE;
> > > > }
> > > 
> > > I'm all for simplifying.  I'm happy to clean up that return to be more
> > > idiomatic.  I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, though, that
> > > the X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC, and
> > > check_tsc_unstable() checks were actually serving a purpose: to ensure
> > > that we don't rely on the tsc in environments where it's being emulated
> > > and the OS would be better served by using a PV clock.  Specifically,
> > > kvmclock_init() makes a very similar set of checks that I also thought
> > > were load-bearing.
> > 
> > Bah, what I meant to say was emulated, unstable, or otherwise unsuitable
> > for use as a clocksource.  IOW, even if TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE is
> > set, it's possible that a user is attempting a migration from a cpu
> > that's not invariant, and we'd still want to check for that case and
> > fall back to a PV clocksource, correct?
> 
> But Thomas' suggestion wasn't changing any behavior compared to your
> patch. It just makes it easier to read.
> 
> If you are unsure your patch is correct, please verify the correctness
> before sending it.

Thanks, and apologies. I misunderstood and thought a more complex change
was requested.

-K