linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/barrier: Do not serialize MSR accesses on AMD

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:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 22:23:28 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Kishon VijayAbraham <Kishon.VijayAbraham@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/barrier: Do not serialize MSR accesses on AMD

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 09:09:05PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> There are other non-serialising MSRs on AMD CPUs, including the FS/GS
> base MSRs on more modern parts which is enumerated in 8000_0021.eax[1].
> 
> So there isn't a boolean "MSRs need fencing, yes/no". 

Well, I was implying that "MSRs need fencing" refers to this particular
use case where weak_wrmsr_fence() is used - IA32_TSC_DEADLINE and X2APIC
MSRs.

So the feature bit should be named something more specific:

	X86_FEATURE_APIC_TSC_MSRS_NEED_FENCING

or so.

If we have to do something for the other case, yes, we will have to
either generalize this or add yet another flag.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette