[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230620075830.GU4253@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:58:30 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 18/20] x86: Handle TDX erratum to reset TDX private
memory during kexec() and reboot
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 06:06:30PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/19/23 17:56, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > Any comments to below?
>
> Nothing that I haven't already said in this thread:
>
> > Just use a normal old atomic_t or set_bit()/test_bit(). They have
> > built-in memory barriers are are less likely to get botched.
>
> I kinda made a point of literally suggesting "atomic_t or
> set_bit()/test_bit()". I even told you why: "built-in memory barriers".
>
> Guess what READ/WRITE_ONCE() *don't* have. Memory barriers.
x86 has built-in memory barriers for being TSO :-) Specifically all
barriers provided by spinlock (acquire/release) are no-ops on x86.
(strictly speaking locks imply stronger order than they have to because
TSO atomic ops imply stronger ordering than required)
There is one (and only the one) re-ordering possible on TSO and that is
the store-buffer, later loads can fail to observe prior stores.
If that is a concern, you need explicit barriers.
This is #MC, much care and explicit open-coded crap is expected. Also,
this is #MC, much broken is also expected :-( As in, the current #MC
handler is a know pile of shit.
Basically the whole of #MC should be noinstr -- it isn't and that's a
significant problem.
Also we still very much suffer the NMI <- #MC problem and the #MC latch
is known broken garbage.
Whatever you do, do it very carefully, double check and be more careful.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists