On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 03:50:55PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06 2020 at 15:29, ira weiny wrote:
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > @@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
> > #include <asm/io_bitmap.h>
> > #include <asm/proto.h>
> > #include <asm/frame.h>
> > +#include <asm/pkeys_common.h>
> >
> > #include "process.h"
> >
> > @@ -187,6 +188,27 @@ int copy_thread(unsigned long clone_flags, unsigned long sp, unsigned long arg,
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SUPERVISOR_PKEYS
> > +DECLARE_PER_CPU(u32, pkrs_cache);
> > +static inline void pks_init_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
>
> First of all. I asked several times now not to glue stuff onto a
> function without a newline inbetween. It's unreadable.
Fixed.
>
> But what's worse is that the declaration of pkrs_cache which is global
> is in a C file and not in a header. And pkrs_cache is not even used in
> this file. So what?
OK, this was just a complete rebase/refactor mess up on my part. The
global'ness is not required until we need a global update of the pkrs which was
not part of this series.
I've removed it from this patch. And cleaned it up in patch 6/10 as well. And
cleaned it up in the global pkrs patch which you found in my git tree.
>
> > +{
> > + /* New tasks get the most restrictive PKRS value */
> > + tsk->thread.saved_pkrs = INIT_PKRS_VALUE;
> > +}
> > +static inline void pks_sched_in(void)
>
> Newline between functions. It's fine for stubs, but not for a real implementation.
Again my apologies.
Fixed.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c b/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c
> > index d1dfe743e79f..76a62419c446 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pkeys.c
> > @@ -231,3 +231,34 @@ u32 update_pkey_val(u32 pk_reg, int pkey, unsigned int flags)
> >
> > return pk_reg;
> > }
> > +
> > +DEFINE_PER_CPU(u32, pkrs_cache);
>
> Again, why is this global?
In this patch it does not need to be. I've changed it to static.
>
> > +void write_pkrs(u32 new_pkrs)
> > +{
> > + u32 *pkrs;
> > +
> > + if (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PKS))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + pkrs = get_cpu_ptr(&pkrs_cache);
>
> So this is called from various places including schedule and also from
> the low level entry/exit code. Why do we need to have an extra
> preempt_disable/enable() there via get/put_cpu_ptr()?
>
> Just because performance in those code paths does not matter?
Honestly I don't recall the full history at this point. The
preempt_disable/enable() is required when this is called from
pks_update_protection() AKA when a user is trying to update the protections of
their key. What I do remember is that this was originally not preempt safe and we
had a comment to that effect in the early patches.[1]
Somewhere along the line the preempt discussion lead us to make write_pkrs()
'self contained' with the preemption protection here. I just did not think
about any performance issues. It is safe to call preempt_disable() from a
preempt disabled region, correct? I seem to recall asking that and the answer
was 'yes'.
I will audit the calls again and adjust the preemption disable as needed.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200717072056.73134-5-ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx/#t
>
> > + if (*pkrs != new_pkrs) {
> > + *pkrs = new_pkrs;
> > + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PKRS, new_pkrs);
> > + }
> > + put_cpu_ptr(pkrs);
>
> Now back to the context switch:
>
> > @@ -644,6 +668,8 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> >
> > if ((tifp ^ tifn) & _TIF_SLD)
> > switch_to_sld(tifn);
> > +
> > + pks_sched_in();
> > }
>
> How is this supposed to work?
>
> switch_to() {
> ....
> switch_to_extra() {
> ....
> if (unlikely(next_tif & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_NEXT ||
> prev_tif & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_PREV))
> __switch_to_xtra(prev, next);
>
> I.e. __switch_to_xtra() is only invoked when the above condition is
> true, which is not guaranteed at all.
I did not know that. I completely missunderstood what __switch_to_xtra()
meant. I thought it was arch specific 'extra' stuff so it seemed reasonable to
me.
Also, our test seemed to work. I'm still investigating what may be wrong.
>
> While I have to admit that I dropped the ball on the update for the
> entry patch, I'm not too sorry about it anymore when looking at this.
>
> Are you still sure that this is ready for merging?
Nope...
Thanks for the review,
Ira
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
