linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv5.1 14/16] x86/smp: Add smp_ops.stop_this

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: <aca16663465ff579da076bb66f851ff71072ef8d.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2024 03:04:15 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: "kexec@...ts.infradead.org" <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev" <linux-coco@...ts.linux.dev>,
	"ashish.kalra@....com" <ashish.kalra@....com>, "dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com"
	<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "thomas.lendacky@....com"
	<thomas.lendacky@....com>, "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	"Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@...el.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>, "mingo@...hat.com"
	<mingo@...hat.com>, "bhe@...hat.com" <bhe@...hat.com>, "tglx@...utronix.de"
	<tglx@...utronix.de>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "Edgecombe, Rick P"
	<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
	"rafael@...nel.org" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
	<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
	<x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5.1 14/16] x86/smp: Add smp_ops.stop_this_cpu() callback


> > > @@ -835,6 +835,13 @@ void __noreturn stop_this_cpu(void *dummy)
> > >  	 */
> > >  	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &cpus_stop_mask);
> > >  
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > +	if (smp_ops.stop_this_cpu) {
> > > +		smp_ops.stop_this_cpu();
> > > +		unreachable();
> > > +	}
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > If I read correctly this will result in stop_this_cpu() having different
> > behaviour for SMP and !SMP build for TDX guest.  For example, AFAICT
> > machine_halt() also calls stop_this_cpu() on local cpu after it stops other
> > cpus.  So for the local cpu, in SMP build it will calls into BIOS's reset vector
> > but in !SMP it will call native_halt().
> 
> It doesn't make a difference in practice: both halt and giving CPU to
> BIOS will be unrecoverable operation. Both are equally acceptable for
> machine_halt().
> 

OK fair enough. :-)