linux-kernel - Re: [patch 28/30] x86/microcode: Handle "offline" CPUs correctly

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: <ZNVsk2a19PuNoeSo@araj-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:02:43 -0700
From:   Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
        Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 28/30] x86/microcode: Handle "offline" CPUs correctly

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:29:57AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 02:49:39PM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 11:05:11PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 01:50:17PM -0700, Ashok Raj wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 08:38:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >  	for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_present_mask, &cpus_booted_once_mask) {
> > > > > > +		/*
> > > > > > +		 * Offline CPUs sit in one of the play_dead() functions
> > > > > > +		 * with interrupts disabled, but they still react on NMIs
> > > > > > +		 * and execute arbitrary code. Also MWAIT being updated
> > > > > > +		 * while the offline CPU sits there is not necessarily safe
> > > > > > +		 * on all CPU variants.
> > > > > > +		 *
> > > > > > +		 * Mark them in the offline_cpus mask which will be handled
> > > > > > +		 * by CPU0 later in the update process.
> > > > > > +		 *
> > > > > > +		 * Ensure that the primary thread is online so that it is
> > > > > > +		 * guaranteed that all cores are updated.
> > > > > > +		 */
> > > > > >  		if (!cpu_online(cpu)) {
> > > > > > +			if (topology_is_primary_thread(cpu) || !allow_smt_offline) {
> > > > > > +				pr_err("CPU %u not online, loading aborted\n", cpu);
> > > > > 
> > > > > We could make the NMI handler do the ucode load, no? Also, you just need
> > > > > any thread online, don't particularly care about primary thread or not
> > > > > afaict.
> > > > 
> > > > Patch 25 does that load in NMI. You are right, we just need "a" CPU in each
> > > > core online. 
> > > 
> > > Patch 25 does it for online CPUs, offline CPUs are having a separate
> > > code path:
> > > 
> > >   microcode_nmi_handler()
> > > 
> > > vs
> > > 
> > >   microcode_offline_nmi_handler()
> > 
> > Since the code enforces all primary CPUs to be ONLINE, the secondaries are the
> > other thread of the same core. So they automatically get the update when
> > primary does it. 
> > 
> > The secondaries are parked in NMI just to avoid the risk of executing code
> > that might be patched by primary.
> > 
> > Or maybe you had something else in mind. 
> 
> Yeah, not placing constraints on who is online at all. Also, if both
> siblings are offline, then onlining will re-load ucode anyway, no?

We need one thread in a core online,  because a MCE can happen and we don't
want those running something stale.