All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Cc: "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	"Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@intel.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Sakkinen, Jarkko" <jarkko.sakkinen@intel.com>,
	"jmorris@namei.org" <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"keyrings@vger.kernel.org" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:34:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A09893543401B@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A098935432E09@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com>

> > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 08:29:29PM -0700, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int mktme_build_cpumask(void) {
> > > > +	int online_cpu, mktme_cpu;
> > > > +	int online_pkgid, mktme_pkgid = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&mktme_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_online_cpu(online_cpu) {
> > > > +		online_pkgid = topology_physical_package_id(online_cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +		for_each_cpu(mktme_cpu, mktme_cpumask) {
> > > > +			mktme_pkgid > > > > topology_physical_package_id(mktme_cpu);
> > > > +			if (mktme_pkgid = online_pkgid)
> > > > +				break;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (mktme_pkgid != online_pkgid)
> > > > +			cpumask_set_cpu(online_cpu, mktme_cpumask);
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > Could we use 'for_each_online_node', 'cpumask_first/next', etc to
> > > simplify the
> > logic?
> >
> > Kai,
> >
> > I tried to simplify it and came up with code that looked like this:
> >
> > 	int lead_cpu, node;
> > 	for_each_online_node(node) {
> > 		lead_cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
> > 		if (lead_cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> > 			cpumask_set_cpu(lead_cpu, mktme_cpumask_NEW);
> > 	}
> > When I test it on an SNC (Sub Numa Cluster) system it gives me too many
> CPU's.
> > I get a CPU per Node (just like i asked for;) instead of per Socket.
> > It has 2 sockets and 4 NUMA nodes.
> >
> > I kind of remember this when I originally coded it, hence the bottoms
> > up approach using topology_physical_package_id()
> >
> > Any ideas?
> 
> Hmm.. I forgot the SNC case, sorry :(
> 
> So in case of SNC, is PCONFIG per-package, or per-node? I am not quite sure
> about this.

I have confirmed internally that PCONFIG is per-package even in SNC.

Thanks,
-Kai
> 
> If PCONFIG is per-package, I don't have better idea than your original one. :)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Kai
> >
> > Alison
> >

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: kai.huang@intel.com (Huang, Kai)
To: linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:34:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A09893543401B@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A098935432E09@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com>

> > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 08:29:29PM -0700, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int mktme_build_cpumask(void) {
> > > > +	int online_cpu, mktme_cpu;
> > > > +	int online_pkgid, mktme_pkgid = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&mktme_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_online_cpu(online_cpu) {
> > > > +		online_pkgid = topology_physical_package_id(online_cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +		for_each_cpu(mktme_cpu, mktme_cpumask) {
> > > > +			mktme_pkgid =
> > > > topology_physical_package_id(mktme_cpu);
> > > > +			if (mktme_pkgid == online_pkgid)
> > > > +				break;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (mktme_pkgid != online_pkgid)
> > > > +			cpumask_set_cpu(online_cpu, mktme_cpumask);
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > Could we use 'for_each_online_node', 'cpumask_first/next', etc to
> > > simplify the
> > logic?
> >
> > Kai,
> >
> > I tried to simplify it and came up with code that looked like this:
> >
> > 	int lead_cpu, node;
> > 	for_each_online_node(node) {
> > 		lead_cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
> > 		if (lead_cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> > 			cpumask_set_cpu(lead_cpu, mktme_cpumask_NEW);
> > 	}
> > When I test it on an SNC (Sub Numa Cluster) system it gives me too many
> CPU's.
> > I get a CPU per Node (just like i asked for;) instead of per Socket.
> > It has 2 sockets and 4 NUMA nodes.
> >
> > I kind of remember this when I originally coded it, hence the bottoms
> > up approach using topology_physical_package_id()
> >
> > Any ideas?
> 
> Hmm.. I forgot the SNC case, sorry :(
> 
> So in case of SNC, is PCONFIG per-package, or per-node? I am not quite sure
> about this.

I have confirmed internally that PCONFIG is per-package even in SNC.

Thanks,
-Kai
> 
> If PCONFIG is per-package, I don't have better idea than your original one. :)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Kai
> >
> > Alison
> >

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
To: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>,
	"Schofield, Alison" <alison.schofield@intel.com>
Cc: "dhowells@redhat.com" <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	"tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
	"Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@intel.com>,
	"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	"Sakkinen, Jarkko" <jarkko.sakkinen@intel.com>,
	"jmorris@namei.org" <jmorris@namei.org>,
	"keyrings@vger.kernel.org" <keyrings@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"hpa@zytor.com" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 22:34:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A09893543401B@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A098935432E09@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com>

> > On Sun, Sep 09, 2018 at 08:29:29PM -0700, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > > > + */
> > > > +static int mktme_build_cpumask(void) {
> > > > +	int online_cpu, mktme_cpu;
> > > > +	int online_pkgid, mktme_pkgid = -1;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!zalloc_cpumask_var(&mktme_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
> > > > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +	for_each_online_cpu(online_cpu) {
> > > > +		online_pkgid = topology_physical_package_id(online_cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +		for_each_cpu(mktme_cpu, mktme_cpumask) {
> > > > +			mktme_pkgid =
> > > > topology_physical_package_id(mktme_cpu);
> > > > +			if (mktme_pkgid == online_pkgid)
> > > > +				break;
> > > > +		}
> > > > +		if (mktme_pkgid != online_pkgid)
> > > > +			cpumask_set_cpu(online_cpu, mktme_cpumask);
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > Could we use 'for_each_online_node', 'cpumask_first/next', etc to
> > > simplify the
> > logic?
> >
> > Kai,
> >
> > I tried to simplify it and came up with code that looked like this:
> >
> > 	int lead_cpu, node;
> > 	for_each_online_node(node) {
> > 		lead_cpu = cpumask_first(cpumask_of_node(node));
> > 		if (lead_cpu < nr_cpu_ids)
> > 			cpumask_set_cpu(lead_cpu, mktme_cpumask_NEW);
> > 	}
> > When I test it on an SNC (Sub Numa Cluster) system it gives me too many
> CPU's.
> > I get a CPU per Node (just like i asked for;) instead of per Socket.
> > It has 2 sockets and 4 NUMA nodes.
> >
> > I kind of remember this when I originally coded it, hence the bottoms
> > up approach using topology_physical_package_id()
> >
> > Any ideas?
> 
> Hmm.. I forgot the SNC case, sorry :(
> 
> So in case of SNC, is PCONFIG per-package, or per-node? I am not quite sure
> about this.

I have confirmed internally that PCONFIG is per-package even in SNC.

Thanks,
-Kai
> 
> If PCONFIG is per-package, I don't have better idea than your original one. :)
> 
> Thanks,
> -Kai
> >
> > Alison
> >

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-17 22:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 159+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-09-07 22:23 [RFC 00/12] Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API (MKTME) Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:23 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:23 ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 01/12] docs/x86: Document the Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API Alison Schofield
2018-09-08 18:44   ` Randy Dunlap
2018-09-08 18:44     ` Randy Dunlap
2018-09-08 18:44     ` Randy Dunlap
2018-09-10  1:28   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  1:28     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  1:28     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:13     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:13       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:13       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:33       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:33         ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:33         ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:45         ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:45           ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:45           ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  1:14           ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  1:14             ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  1:14             ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:14     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:14       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  0:14       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 17:32   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:32     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:32     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11  0:19     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:19       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:19       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 02/12] mm: Generalize the mprotect implementation to support extensions Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 10:12   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 10:12     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 10:12     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11  0:34     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:34       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  0:34       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34 ` [RFC 03/12] syscall/x86: Wire up a new system call for memory encryption keys Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:34   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 04/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to manage " Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10  2:56   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  2:56     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  2:56     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:37     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:37       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:37       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 23:41       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 23:41         ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 23:41         ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 17:37   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 05/12] x86/mm: Add a helper function to set keyid bits in encrypted VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:36   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 17:57   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:57     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:57     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-07 22:36 ` [RFC 06/12] mm: Add the encrypt_mprotect() system call Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:02   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 18:02     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 18:02     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11  2:15     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:15       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:15       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 07/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to track encrypted VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10  3:17   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  3:17     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 08/12] mm: Track VMA's in use for each memory encryption keyid Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:20   ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 18:20     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 18:20     ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11  2:39     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:39       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:39       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37 ` [RFC 09/12] mm: Restrict memory encryption to anonymous VMA's Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:37   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 18:21   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:21     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:21     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:57     ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 18:57       ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 18:57       ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 21:07       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 21:07         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 21:07         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-10 21:09         ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 21:09           ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-10 21:09           ` Dave Hansen
2018-09-07 22:38 ` [RFC 10/12] x86/pconfig: Program memory encryption keys on a system-wide basis Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:38   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:38   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10  1:46   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  1:46     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 18:24   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:24     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 18:24     ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11  2:46     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:46       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  2:46       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 14:31       ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11 14:31         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-11 14:31         ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2018-09-07 22:38 ` [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:38   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:38   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10  3:29   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  3:29     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  3:29     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 21:47     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 21:47       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 21:47       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-15  0:06     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-15  0:06       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-15  0:06       ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-17 10:48       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-17 10:48         ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-17 10:48         ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-17 22:34         ` Huang, Kai [this message]
2018-09-17 22:34           ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-17 22:34           ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-07 22:39 ` [RFC 12/12] keys/mktme: Do not revoke in use " Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:39   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-07 22:39   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10  1:10 ` [RFC 00/12] Multi-Key Total Memory Encryption API (MKTME) Huang, Kai
2018-09-10  1:10   ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 19:10   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 19:10     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-10 19:10     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11  3:15     ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  3:15       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-11  3:15       ` Huang, Kai
2018-09-10 17:29 ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:29   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-10 17:29   ` Sakkinen, Jarkko
2018-09-11 22:03 ` [RFC 11/12] keys/mktme: Add a new key service type for memory encryption keys David Howells
2018-09-11 22:03   ` David Howells
2018-09-11 22:03   ` David Howells
2018-09-11 22:39   ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 22:39     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 22:39     ` Alison Schofield
2018-09-11 23:01   ` David Howells
2018-09-11 23:01     ` David Howells
2018-09-11 23:01     ` David Howells
2018-09-11 22:56 ` [RFC 04/12] x86/mm: Add helper functions to manage " David Howells
2018-09-11 22:56   ` David Howells
2018-09-11 22:56   ` David Howells
2018-09-12 11:12 ` [RFC 12/12] keys/mktme: Do not revoke in use " David Howells
2018-09-12 11:12   ` David Howells
2018-09-12 11:12   ` David Howells

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=105F7BF4D0229846AF094488D65A09893543401B@PGSMSX112.gar.corp.intel.com \
    --to=kai.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=alison.schofield@intel.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jarkko.sakkinen@intel.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
    --cc=keyrings@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.