linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 20/31] x86/resctrl: Allow an architecture to disable pseudo lock

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: <Zhfw/uEZaYk9492j@e133380.arm.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 15:17:34 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>, Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>,
	shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
	D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
	carl@...amperecomputing.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
	bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
	baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
	Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@...gle.com,
	dfustini@...libre.com, amitsinght@...vell.com,
	David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Rex Nie <rex.nie@...uarmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 20/31] x86/resctrl: Allow an architecture to disable
 pseudo lock

On Mon, Apr 08, 2024 at 08:24:12PM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On 3/21/2024 9:50 AM, James Morse wrote:
> > Pseudo-lock relies on knowledge of the micro-architecture to disable
> > prefetchers etc.
> > 
> > On arm64 these controls are typically secure only, meaning linux can't
> > access them. Arm's cache-lockdown feature works in a very different
> > way. Resctrl's pseudo-lock isn't going to be used on arm64 platforms.
> > 
> > Add a Kconfig symbol that can be selected by the architecture. This
> > enables or disables building of the psuedo_lock.c file, and replaces
> 
> pseudo_lock.c

Noted.

> > the functions with stubs. An additional IS_ENABLED() check is needed
> > in rdtgroup_mode_write() so that attempting to enable pseudo-lock
> > reports an "Unknown or unsupported mode" to user-space.
> > 
> 
> I am missing something here. It is not obvious to me why the IS_ENABLED()
> check is needed. Wouldn't rdtgroup_locksetup_enter()
> return -EOPNOTSUPP if CONFIG_RESCTRL_FS_PSEUDO_LOCK is not enabled?
> 
> Reinette
> 

Hmm, if I've understood all this correctly, then it looks like the
existing code in rdtgroup_mode_write() relies on the dispatched
function (rdtgroup_locksetup_enter() etc.) to do an appropriate
rdt_last_cmd_puts() on failure.  If no function is called at all and
the requested mode change is not a no-op or otherwise trivially
successful, then it looks like we're supposed to fall into the else
clause.

I'd guess James' intent here was to use the fallback else {} to write
a suitable status string, while keeping the stub functions as trivial
as possible.

Just taking the IS_ENABLED() away would result in error return from the
write(), but no suitable last_cmd_status string.

For consistency with the existing x86 implementation, I wonder whether
we should put a suitable rdt_last_cmd_puts() in the stub for
rdtgroup_locksetup_enter().

There might be other ways to refactor or simplify this, though.

Thoughts?

Cheers
---Dave