linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/fpu: Don't support kernel-mode FPU when irqs

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: <aCl_cSO2XqtSQEZT@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2025 08:34:25 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ayush Jain <Ayush.Jain3@....com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/fpu: Don't support kernel-mode FPU when
 irqs_disabled()


* Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Alternatively we could set in_kernel_fpu during CPU bootstrap, and 
> > clear it once we know the FPU is usable? This is only a relatively 
> > short early boot period, with no scheduling, right?
> 
> Yes, if there isn't agreement on this approach we can do that 
> instead.  Say:
> 
> - Replace in_kernel_fpu with kernel_fpu_supported, with the opposite 
>   meaning (so that the initial value of false means "unsupported")

I'm not against simplifying the x86 FPU model to exclude IRQs-off
context (especially if it also micro-optimizes some of the key runtime
kernel-FPU primitives), but it has to be a full solution and we'll have
to see how complicated the EFI changes get.

Ie. without seeing the full cost-benefit balance it's hard to call this
in advance. Mind sending a full series that addresses the EFI case too?

Thanks,

	Ingo