On 2018-10-12 10:51:34 [-0700], Dave Hansen wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> > index 16c4077ffc945..956d967ca824a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/fpu/internal.h
> > @@ -570,11 +570,23 @@ switch_fpu_prepare(struct fpu *old_fpu, int cpu)
> > */
> > static inline void switch_fpu_finish(struct fpu *new_fpu, int cpu)
> > {
> > - bool preload = static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU) &&
> > - new_fpu->initialized;
> > + bool load_fpu;
> >
> > - if (preload)
> > - __fpregs_load_activate(new_fpu, cpu);
> > + load_fpu = static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FPU) && new_fpu->initialized;
> > + if (!load_fpu)
> > + return;
>
> Needs comments, please. Especially around what an uninitialized new_fpu
> means.
that ->initialized field is gone.
> > + __fpregs_load_activate(new_fpu, cpu);
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_INTEL_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
> > + if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE)) {
>
> FWIW, you should be able to use cpu_feature_enabled() instead of an
> explicit #ifdef here.
okay.
> > + struct pkru_state *pk;
> > +
> > + pk = __raw_xsave_addr(&new_fpu->state.xsave, XFEATURE_PKRU);
> > + if (pk->pkru != __read_pkru())
> > + __write_pkru(pk->pkru);
> > + }
> > +#endif
> > }
>
> Comments here as well, please.
>
> I think the goal is to keep the PKRU state in the 'init state' when
> possible and also to save the cost of WRPKRU. But, it would be really
> nice to be explicit.
added:
/*
* Writting PKRU is expensive. Only write the PKRU value if it is
* different from the current one.
*/
> > -static inline void write_pkru(u32 pkru)
> > -{
> > - if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
> > - __write_pkru(pkru);
> > -}
> > +void write_pkru(u32 pkru);
>
> One reason I inlined this was because it enables the the PK code to be
> optimized away entirely. Putting the checks behind a function call
> makes this optimization impossible.
>
> Could you elaborate on why you chose to do this and what you think the
> impact is or is not?
One thing let to another. It gets to an include mess once I tried to do
more than just reading / writting the value.
I kept now write_pkru() and added __write_pkru_if_new() which does the
extra pieces. If you don't like the new version we would need to look on
how to make it simpler :)
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> > index 19b137f1b3beb..b184f916319e5 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h
> > @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ extern int arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> > unsigned long init_val);
> > extern int __arch_set_user_pkey_access(struct task_struct *tsk, int pkey,
> > unsigned long init_val);
> > -extern void copy_init_pkru_to_fpregs(void);
> > +extern void pkru_set_init_value(void);
>
> Could you elaborate on why the name is being changed?
The function name read like init_pkru value is copied to fpregs save
area which is not the case. I could revert it if you prefer.
> > +void write_pkru(u32 pkru)
> > +{
> > + struct pkru_state *pk;
> > +
> > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_OSPKE))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + pk = __raw_xsave_addr(¤t->thread.fpu.state.xsave, XFEATURE_PKRU);
> > + /*
> > + * Update the PKRU value in cstate and then in the CPU. A context
>
> "cstate"? Did you mean xstate?
indeed.
> > + * switch between those two operation would load the new value from the
> > + * updated xstate and then we would write (the same value) to the CPU.
> > + */
> > + pk->pkru = pkru;
> > + __write_pkru(pkru);
> > +
> > +}
>
> There's an unnecessary line there.
>
> This also needs a lot more high-level context about why it is necessary.
> I think you had that in the changelog, but we also need the function
> commented.
What is necessary? The manual update of "pk->pkru?
> > - if (!init_pkru_value_snapshot && !read_pkru())
> > + if (init_pkru_value_snapshot == read_pkru())
> > return;
> > - /*
> > - * Override the PKRU state that came from 'init_fpstate'
> > - * with the baseline from the process.
> > - */
> > +
> > write_pkru(init_pkru_value_snapshot);
> > }
>
> Isn't this doing some of the same work (including rdpkru()) as write_pkru()?
Well, yes. Since my write_pkru() checks if the new value the same as the
current I dropped most of the code here.
Sebastian
