Re: [PATCH v6 04/20] x86/split_lock: Align x86_capability to unsigned long to avoid split locked access

From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
Cc: 'Fenghua Yu' <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
	'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	'Ingo Molnar' <mingo@redhat.com>,
	'Borislav Petkov' <bp@alien8.de>, 'H Peter Anvin' <hpa@zytor.com>,
	'Dave Hansen' <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	'Paolo Bonzini' <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	'Ashok Raj' <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
	'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@infradead.org>,
	'Kalle Valo' <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
	'Xiaoyao Li ' <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
	'Michael Chan' <michael.chan@broadcom.com>,
	'Ravi V Shankar' <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
	'linux-kernel' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	'x86' <x86@kernel.org>,
	"'linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org'"
	<linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'netdev@vger.kernel.org'" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	"'kvm@vger.kernel.org'" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/20] x86/split_lock: Align x86_capability to unsigned long to avoid split locked access
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:35:45 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190404163545.GE9911@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c0d43317cce34389ac4a1e91e97d909b@AcuMS.aculab.com>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:24:15PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: David Laight
> > Sent: 04 April 2019 15:45
> > 
> > From: Fenghua Yu
> > > Sent: 03 April 2019 22:22
> > > set_cpu_cap() calls locked BTS and clear_cpu_cap() calls locked BTR to
> > > operate on bitmap defined in x86_capability.
> > >
> > > Locked BTS/BTR accesses a single unsigned long location. In 64-bit mode,
> > > the location is at:
> > > base address of x86_capability + (bit offset in x86_capability / 64) * 8
> > >
> > > Since base address of x86_capability may not be aligned to unsigned long,
> > > the single unsigned long location may cross two cache lines and
> > > accessing the location by locked BTS/BTR introductions will trigger #AC.
> > 
> > That is not true.
> > The BTS/BTR instructions access the memory word that contains the
> > expected bit.
> > The 'operand size' only affects the size of the register use for the
> > bit offset.
> > If the 'operand size' is 16 bits wide (+/- 32k bit offset) the cpu might
> > do an aligned 16bit memory access, otherwise (32 or 64bit bit offset) it
> > might do an aligned 32 bit access.
> > It should never do an 64bit access and never a misaligned one (even if
> > the base address is misaligned).
> 
> Hmmm... I may have misread things slightly.
> The accessed address is 'Effective Address + (4 ∗ (BitOffset DIV 32))'.
> However nothing suggests that it ever does 64bit accesses.
> 
> If it does do 64bit accesses when the operand size is 64 bits then the
> asm stubs ought to be changed to only specify 32bit operand size.

Heh, we had this discussion before[1], the op size dictates the size of
the memory access and can generate unaligned accesses.

[1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20181127195153.GE27075@linux.intel.com