On 1/10/20 7:38 am, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 30 2020 at 20:35, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 30 2020 at 19:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:40:08PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> Also, that preempt_disable() in there doesn't actually do anything.
>>>> Worse, preempt_disable(); for_each_cpu(); is an anti-pattern. It mixes
>>>> static_cpu_has() and boot_cpu_has() in the same bloody condition and has
>>>> a pointless ret variable.
>>
>> Also, I forgot to add, it accesses ->cpus_mask without the proper
>> locking, so it could be reading intermediate state from whatever cpumask
>> operation that's in progress.
>
> Yes. I saw that after hitting send. :(
>
>>> I absolutely agree and I really missed it when looking at it before
>>> merging. cpus_read_lock()/unlock() is the right thing to do if at all.
>>>
>>>> It's shoddy code, that only works if you align the planets right. We
>>>> really shouldn't provide interfaces that are this bad.
>>>>
>>>> It's correct operation is only by accident.
>>>
>>> True :(
>>>
>>> I understand Balbirs problem and it makes some sense to provide a
>>> solution. We can:
>>>
>>> 1) reject set_affinity() if the task has that flush muck enabled
>>> and user space tries to move it to a SMT enabled core
>>>
>>> 2) disable the muck if if detects that it is runs on a SMT enabled
>>> core suddenly (hotplug says hello)
>>>
>>> This one is nasty because there is no feedback to user space
>>> about the wreckage.
>>
>> That's and, right, not or. because 1) deals with sched_setffinity()
>> and 2) deals wit hotplug.
>
> It was meant as AND of course.
>
>> Now 1) requires an arch hook in sched_setaffinity(), something I'm not
>> keen on providing, once we provide it, who knows what strange and
>> wonderful things archs will dream up.
>
> I don't think so. We can have that magic in core:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PARANOID_L1D_FLUSH
> static bool paranoid_l1d_valid(struct task_struct *tsk,
> const struct cpumask *msk)
> {
> if (!test_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_SPEC_L1D_FLUSH))
> return true;
> /* Do magic stuff */
> return res;
> }
> #else
> static bool paranoid_l1d_valid(struct task_struct *tsk,
> const struct cpumask *msk)
> {
> return true;
> }
> #endif
>
> It's a pretty well defined problem and having the magic in core code
> prevents an arch hook which allows abuse of all sorts.
>
> And the same applies to enable_l1d_flush_for_task(). The only
> architecture specific nonsense are the checks whether the CPU bug is
> there and whether the hardware supports L1D flushing.
>
> So we can have:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_HAS_PARANOID_L1D_FLUSH
> int paranoid_l1d_enable(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> /* Do the SMT validation under the proper locks */
> if (!res)
> set_task_thread_flag(tsk, TIF_SPEC_L1D_FLUSH);
> return res;
> }
> #endif
>
>> And 2) also happens on hot-un-plug, when the task's affinity gets
>> forced because it became empty. No user feedback there either, and
>> information is lost.
>
> Of course. It's both that suddenly SMT gets enabled on a core which was
> isolated and when the last isolated core in the tasks CPU mask goes
> offline.
>
>> I suppose we can do 2) but send a signal. That would cover all cases and
>> keep it in arch code. But yes, that's pretty terrible too.
>
> Bah. I just looked at the condition to flush:
>
> if (sched_smt_active() && !this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active) &&
> (prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH))
> l1d_flush_hw();
>
> That fails to flush when SMT is disabled globally. Balbir?
>
> Of course this should be:
>
> if (!this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active) && (prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH))
> l1d_flush_hw();
>
> Now we can make this:
>
> if (unlikely(prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH)) {
> if (!this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active))
> l1d_flush_hw();
> else
> task_work_add(...);
>
> And that task work clears the flag and sends a signal. We're not going
> to send a signal from switch_mm() ....
>
> Thanks,
>
So this is the change I am playing with, I don't like the idea of killing the task, but it's better than silently not flushing, I guess system administrators will learn with time not to correctly the affinity of tasks flushing
L1D. For the affinity bits, not being able to change the affinity is better, but not being able to provide feedback on as to why is a bit weird as well, but I wonder if there are other cases where we might want to lock the affinity of a task for it's lifetime.
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
index 6b0f4c88b07c..6b0d0a9cd447 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c
@@ -320,26 +320,15 @@ int enable_l1d_flush_for_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
/*
* Do not enable L1D_FLUSH_OUT if
- * b. The CPU is not affected by the L1TF bug
- * c. The CPU does not have L1D FLUSH feature support
- * c. The task's affinity is on cores with SMT on.
+ * a. The CPU is not affected by the L1TF bug
+ * b. The CPU does not have L1D FLUSH feature support
*/
if (!boot_cpu_has_bug(X86_BUG_L1TF) ||
- !static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D))
+ !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_FLUSH_L1D))
return -EINVAL;
- cpu = get_cpu();
-
- for_each_cpu(i, &tsk->cpus_mask) {
- if (cpu_data(i).smt_active == true) {
- put_cpu();
- return -EINVAL;
- }
- }
-
set_ti_thread_flag(&tsk->thread_info, TIF_SPEC_L1D_FLUSH);
- put_cpu();
return ret;
}
@@ -349,6 +338,12 @@ int disable_l1d_flush_for_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
return 0;
}
+static void l1d_flush_kill(struct callback_head *ch)
+{
+ clear_ti_thread_flag(¤t->thread_info, TIF_SPEC_L1D_FLUSH);
+ force_signal(SIGBUS);
+}
+
void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
struct task_struct *tsk)
{
@@ -443,12 +438,14 @@ static void cond_mitigation(struct task_struct *next)
}
/*
- * Flush only if SMT is disabled as per the contract, which is checked
- * when the feature is enabled.
+ * Flush only if SMT is disabled, if flushing is enabled
+ * and we are on an SMT enabled core, kill the task
*/
- if (sched_smt_active() && !this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active) &&
- (prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH))
- l1d_flush_hw();
+ if (unlikely(prev_mm & LAST_USER_MM_L1D_FLUSH)) {
+ if (!this_cpu_read(cpu_info.smt_active))
+ l1d_flush_hw();
+ else
+ task_work_add(prev, l1d_flush_kill, true);
this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.last_user_mm_spec, next_mm);
}
