[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Stack switching plan of attack (Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] Entry stack switching)
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 07:50:59AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 1. There needs to be a way to turn it off to get the performance hit
> under control. I'm leaning toward a boot-time switch, and we can turn
> it into a runtime switch later on. Thoughts?

Yes, we need a runtime switch off for machines/vendors which might not
be affected.

> I don't care too much about idtentry performance, but syscall
> performance matters a lot, and my patches slow it down. I probably
> need to benchmark to see whether

Yeah, having numbers here would be good.

> there's any point to turning *entry* stack switching off, but we
> definitely need to turn *exit* stack switching off when it's not
> needed.
> (Entry stack switching doesn't directly affect SYSCALL, and I've
> structured the SYSCALL code so that the entry part can be turned on
> and off just by changing the entry target MSR.)
> 2. The TSS should be RO. Otherwise I think it's just too big a
> security regression.
> and possibly 3: fix the existing performance regression on Atom
> syscalls. That's easy-ish, but it's ugly and stupid.
> I'm assuming that KAISER itself will miss the merge window and that
> we'll just deal with it.

4. Backporting the whole crap is another PITA topic...


SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-23 19:11    [W:0.026 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site