From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2020 09:32:01 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200328163201.GI8104@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325030924.132881-2-xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:09:23AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> 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");
A few nits on the error handling.
The error message for this is a bit wonky, lots of colons and it's not
super clear what "Disabled" refers to.
[ 0.000000] x86/split lock detection: MSR access failed: Disabled
Maybe this, so that it reads "split lock detection disabled because the MSR
access failed".
pr_info("Disabled, MSR access failed\n");
And rather than duplicate the error message, maybe use a goto, e.g.
if (!split_lock_verify_msr(false))
goto msr_failed;
...
if (!split_lock_verify_msr(true))
goto msr_failed;
> + 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);
I think it'd be worth a WARN_ON() if this fails with sld_state != off. If
the WRMSR fails, then presumably SLD is off when it's expected to be on.
The implied WARN on the unsafe WRMSR in sld_update_msr() won't fire unless
a task generates an #AC on a non-buggy core and then gets migrated to the
buggy core. Even if the WARNs are redundant, if something is wrong it'd be
a lot easier for a user to triage/debug if there is a WARN in boot as
opposed to a runtime WARN that requires a misbehaving application and
scheduler behavior.
> }
>
> 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:[~2020-03-28 16:32 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 ` [PATCH v7 1/2] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection Xiaoyao Li
2020-03-28 16:32 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
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=20200328163201.GI8104@linux.intel.com \
--to=sean.j.christopherson@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=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
/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).