Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
	Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
	Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	valentin.schneider@arm.com, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/x86: Save [ER]FLAGS on context switch
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 19:10:34 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902221853330.1666@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wh1B9eRG=gj7wsFVC5XNEedk8Edive-2cQok6T2dNq2aQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 1:35 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > IMNSHO any call inside a AC region is a bug lurking round the corner. The
> > only thing which is tolerable is an exception of some sort.
> >
> > Enforce that with objtool. End of story.
> 
> Not quite that simple.

But correct :)

> Right now "filldir()" messes with AC a total of *six* times. It sets
> four field values, and then does a "copy_to_user()", all of which
> set/clear AC right now. It's wasting hundreds of cycles on this,
> because AC is so slow to set/clear.
> 
> If AC was cheap, this wouldn't be much of an issue. But AC is really
> really expensive. I think it's microcode and serializes the pipeline
> or something.
> 
> Anyway. We already have a possible call site, and there are good
> reasons for future ones too. But they are hopefully all very
> controlled.

I agree, that a function which is doing the actual copy should be callable,
but random other functions? NO!

The problem is that once you open that can of worms the people who think
their problem is special will come around and do

      begin()
      copy_to_user_unsafe(uptr, collect_data())
      end()

just because they can. That's the stuff, I'm worried about, not the well
defined copy_to/from_user() invocation. We can deal with that and make sure
that it's safe even with tracing and annotate with some special magic. It's
simpler to find and check a new '__safe_inside_ac' annotation than chasing
randomly added code within a gazillion of begin/end sections.

Thanks,

	tglx

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel