From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757680AbcK2OZg (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:25:36 -0500 Received: from mail-wj0-f194.google.com ([209.85.210.194]:33177 "EHLO mail-wj0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757623AbcK2OZP (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2016 09:25:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:25:10 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra , LKML , x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov , Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: [patch 4/8] x86/tsc: Verify TSC_ADJUST from idle Message-ID: <20161129142509.GA23458@gmail.com> References: <20161119133816.633700010@linutronix.de> <20161119134017.732180441@linutronix.de> <20161120131002.GZ3117@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20161121110606.GJ3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 09:16:44AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 01:47:37PM -0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > When entering idle, it's a good oportunity to verify that the TSC_ADJUST > > > > > MSR has not been tampered with (BIOS hiding SMM cycles). If tampering is > > > > > detected, emit a warning and restore it to the previous value. > > > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c > > > > > @@ -277,6 +277,7 @@ void exit_idle(void) > > > > > > > > > > void arch_cpu_idle_enter(void) > > > > > { > > > > > + tsc_verify_tsc_adjust(); > > > > > local_touch_nmi(); > > > > > enter_idle(); > > > > > } > > > > > > > > Doing a RDMSR on the idle path isn't going to be popular. That path is > > > > already way too slow. > > > > > > Of course we can ratelimit that MSR read with jiffies, but do you have any > > > better suggestion aside of doing it timer based? > > > > Not really :/ > > Revamped patch below. The whole series: Reviewed-by: Ingo Molnar Ingo