linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: errata: Minimize tlb flush due to vttbr writes on AmpereOne

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Zd5FeS0Vlzp8MIwr@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:26:33 +0000
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>,
	kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, maz@...nel.org, will@...nel.org,
	suzuki.poulose@....com, james.morse@....com, corbet@....net,
	boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, darren@...amperecomputing.com,
	d.scott.phillips@...erecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: errata: Minimize tlb flush due to vttbr writes on
 AmpereOne

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:11:22PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 09:45:59AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:

[...]

> > Think of the precedent this would establish. What would stop
> > implementers from, say, changing out our memcpy implementation into a
> > a hundred different uarch-specific routines. That isn't maintainable,
> > nor is it even testable as most folks don't have access to your
> > hardware.
> 
> I agree. FTR, I'm fine with uarch optimisations if (a) they don't
> run-time patch the kernel binary, (b) don't affect the existing hardware
> and (c) show significant gains on the targeted uarch in some meaningful
> benchmarks (definitely not microbenchmark hammering a certain kernel
> path).

and (d) they have a minimal, maintainable code footprint :)

> So, if one wants an optimisation, it better benefits the other
> implementations or at least it doesn't make them worse. Now, we do have
> hardware from mobiles to large enterprise systems, so at some point we
> may have to make a call on different kernel behaviours, possibly even at
> run-time. We already do this at build-time, e.g. CONFIG_NUMA where it
> doesn't make much sense in a mobile (yet). But they should not be seen
> as uarch specific tweaks, more like higher-level classes of
> optimisations.

Agreed. I think the way we handled this case is a great example of how
these sort of things should go -- a general improvement to how the stage-2
MMU gets loaded on VHE systems, which ought to benefit other
implementations too.

Only if we can't extract a generalization should we even think about
something implementation-specific, IMO.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver