From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752191AbdLDWse (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:48:34 -0500
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:50940 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750995AbdLDWsb (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:48:31 -0500
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:47:57 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Borislav Petkov <bpetkov@suse.de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        Eduardo Valentin <eduval@amazon.com>, aliguori@amazon.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Daniel Gruss <daniel.gruss@iaik.tugraz.at>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, michael.schwarz@iaik.tugraz.at,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, moritz.lipp@iaik.tugraz.at,
        richard.fellner@student.tugraz.at, abanman@hpe.com,
        mike.travis@hpe.com
Subject: Re: [patch 51/60] x86/mm: Allow flushing for future ASID switches
Message-ID: <20171204224757.GC20227@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20171204140706.296109558@linutronix.de>
 <20171204150609.002009374@linutronix.de>
 <CALCETrX+DaXTTTQs_b_9nq2BpkCxrTv5FzLgyMd23wxczXn=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX+DaXTTTQs_b_9nq2BpkCxrTv5FzLgyMd23wxczXn=GQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:22:54PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> > +static inline void invalidate_pcid_other(void)
> > +{
> > +       /*
> > +        * With global pages, all of the shared kenel page tables
> > +        * are set as _PAGE_GLOBAL.  We have no shared nonglobals
> > +        * and nothing to do here.
> > +        */
> > +       if (!static_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_SECURE_MODE_KPTI))
> > +               return;
> 
> I think I'd be more comfortable if this check were in the caller, not
> here.  Shouldn't a function called invalidate_pcid_other() do what the
> name says?

Yeah, you're probably right. The thing is course that we only ever need
that operation for kpti (as of now). But me renaming this stuff made
this problem :/

> > +       this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.invalidate_other, true);
> 
> Why do we need this extra variable instead of just looping over all
> other ASIDs and invalidating them?  It would be something like:
> 
>         for (i = 1; i < TLB_NR_DYN_ASIDS; i++) {
>                 if (i != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.loaded_mm_asid))
>                        this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.ctxs[i].ctx_id, 0);
>         }
> 
> modulo epic whitespace damage and possible typos.

I think the point is that we can do many invalidate_other's before we
ever do a switch_mm(). The above would be more expensive.

Not sure it would matter in practise though.

> >  static inline void __flush_tlb_one(unsigned long addr)
> >  {
> >         count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ONE);
> >         __flush_tlb_single(addr);
> > +       /*
> > +        * Invalidate other address spaces inaccessible to single-page
> > +        * invalidation:
> > +        */
> 
> Ugh.  If I'm reading this right, __flush_tlb_single() means "flush one
> user address" and __flush_tlb_one() means "flush one kernel address".

That would make sense, woulnd't it? :-) But afaict the __flush_tlb_one()
user in tlb_uv.c is in fact for userspace and should be
__flush_tlb_single().

Andrew, Mike, can either of you shed light on what exactly you need
invalidated there?

> That's, um, not exactly obvious.  Could this be at least commented
> better?

As is __flush_tlb_single() does user and __flush_tlb_one() does
user+kernel.