From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
hpa@zytor.com
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
luto@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v7 1/2] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 11:09:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200325030924.132881-2-xiaoyao.li@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325030924.132881-1-xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Current initialization flow of split lock detection has following
issues:
1. It assumes the initial value of MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT to be
zero. However, it's possible that BIOS/firmware has set it.
2. X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT flag is unconditionally set even if
there is a virtualization flaw that FMS indicates the existence while
it's actually not supported.
Rework the initialization flow to solve above issues. In detail,
explicitly clear and set split_lock_detect bit to verify MSR_TEST_CTRL
can be accessed, and rdmsr after wrmsr to ensure bit is cleared/set
successfully.
X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT flag is set only when the feature does
exist and the feature is not disabled with kernel param
"split_lock_detect=off"
On each processor, explicitly updating the SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT bit based
on sld_sate in split_lock_init() since BIOS/firmware may touch it.
Originally-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
index db3e745e5d47..deb5c42c2089 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ enum split_lock_detect_state {
* split_lock_setup() will switch this to sld_warn on systems that support
* split lock detect, unless there is a command line override.
*/
-static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state = sld_off;
+static enum split_lock_detect_state sld_state __ro_after_init = sld_off;
/*
* Processors which have self-snooping capability can handle conflicting
@@ -984,78 +984,90 @@ static inline bool match_option(const char *arg, int arglen, const char *opt)
return len == arglen && !strncmp(arg, opt, len);
}
+static bool split_lock_verify_msr(bool on)
+{
+ u64 ctrl, tmp;
+
+ if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &ctrl))
+ return false;
+
+ if (on)
+ ctrl |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
+ else
+ ctrl &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
+
+ if (wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, ctrl))
+ return false;
+
+ rdmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTRL, tmp);
+ return ctrl == tmp;
+}
+
static void __init split_lock_setup(void)
{
+ enum split_lock_detect_state state = sld_warn;
char arg[20];
int i, ret;
- setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT);
- sld_state = sld_warn;
+ if (!split_lock_verify_msr(false)) {
+ pr_info("MSR access failed: Disabled\n");
+ return;
+ }
ret = cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "split_lock_detect",
arg, sizeof(arg));
if (ret >= 0) {
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sld_options); i++) {
if (match_option(arg, ret, sld_options[i].option)) {
- sld_state = sld_options[i].state;
+ state = sld_options[i].state;
break;
}
}
}
- switch (sld_state) {
+ switch (state) {
case sld_off:
pr_info("disabled\n");
- break;
-
+ return;
case sld_warn:
pr_info("warning about user-space split_locks\n");
break;
-
case sld_fatal:
pr_info("sending SIGBUS on user-space split_locks\n");
break;
}
+
+ if (!split_lock_verify_msr(true)) {
+ pr_info("MSR access failed: Disabled\n");
+ return;
+ }
+
+ sld_state = state;
+ setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT);
}
/*
- * Locking is not required at the moment because only bit 29 of this
- * MSR is implemented and locking would not prevent that the operation
- * of one thread is immediately undone by the sibling thread.
- * Use the "safe" versions of rdmsr/wrmsr here because although code
- * checks CPUID and MSR bits to make sure the TEST_CTRL MSR should
- * exist, there may be glitches in virtualization that leave a guest
- * with an incorrect view of real h/w capabilities.
+ * MSR_TEST_CTRL is per core, but we treat it like a per CPU MSR. Locking
+ * is not implemented as one thread could undo the setting of the other
+ * thread immediately after dropping the lock anyway.
*/
-static bool __sld_msr_set(bool on)
+static void sld_update_msr(bool on)
{
u64 test_ctrl_val;
- if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &test_ctrl_val))
- return false;
+ rdmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val);
if (on)
test_ctrl_val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
else
test_ctrl_val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
- return !wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val);
+ wrmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val);
}
static void split_lock_init(void)
{
- if (sld_state == sld_off)
- return;
-
- if (__sld_msr_set(true))
- return;
-
- /*
- * If this is anything other than the boot-cpu, you've done
- * funny things and you get to keep whatever pieces.
- */
- pr_warn("MSR fail -- disabled\n");
- sld_state = sld_off;
+ split_lock_verify_msr(sld_state != sld_off);
}
bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
@@ -1071,7 +1083,7 @@ bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
* progress and set TIF_SLD so the detection is re-enabled via
* switch_to_sld() when the task is scheduled out.
*/
- __sld_msr_set(false);
+ sld_update_msr(false);
set_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SLD);
return true;
}
@@ -1085,7 +1097,7 @@ bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
*/
void switch_to_sld(unsigned long tifn)
{
- __sld_msr_set(!(tifn & _TIF_SLD));
+ sld_update_msr(!(tifn & _TIF_SLD));
}
#define SPLIT_LOCK_CPU(model) {X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, model, X86_FEATURE_ANY}
--
2.20.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-25 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 3:09 [PATCH v7 0/2] Fix and optimization of split_lock_detection Xiaoyao Li
2020-03-25 3:09 ` Xiaoyao Li [this message]
2020-03-28 16:32 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection Sean Christopherson
2020-03-30 13:26 ` Xiaoyao Li
2020-03-30 14:26 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-25 3:09 ` [PATCH v7 2/2] x86/split_lock: Avoid runtime reads of the TEST_CTRL MSR Xiaoyao Li
2020-03-28 16:34 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-03-29 9:13 ` Xiaoyao Li
2020-03-30 18:18 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-04-03 17:44 ` [PATCH 0/1] x86/split_lock: check split lock feature on initialization Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-03 17:44 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-03 18:01 ` Sean Christopherson
2020-04-06 8:23 ` Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-06 11:48 ` Xiaoyao Li
2020-04-06 15:57 ` [PATCH v2 0/1] x86/split_lock: check split lock support " Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-06 16:02 ` [PATCH v2 1/1] " Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-06 16:17 ` [PATCH v3 " Benjamin Lamowski
2020-04-06 21:24 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-04-06 21:21 ` [PATCH 0/1] x86/split_lock: check split lock feature " Thomas Gleixner
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=20200325030924.132881-2-xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--to=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nivedita@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).