lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v2 6/6] x86/entry/pti: don't switch PGD on when pti_disable is set

* Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> When a syscall returns to userspace with pti_disable set, it means the
> current mm is configured to disable page table isolation (PTI). In this
> case, returns from kernel to user will not switch the CR3, leaving it
> to the kernel one which already maps both user and kernel pages. This
> avoids a TLB flush, and saves another one on next entry.
>
> Thanks to these changes, haproxy running under KVM went back from
> 12700 conn/s (without PCID) or 19700 (with PCID) to 23100 once loaded
> after calling prctl(), indicating that PTI has no measurable impact on
> this workload.
>
> Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>
> v2:
> - use pti_disable instead of task flag
> ---
> arch/x86/entry/calling.h | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/calling.h b/arch/x86/entry/calling.h
> index 2c0d3b5..5361a10 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/entry/calling.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/calling.h
> @@ -229,6 +229,11 @@
>
> .macro SWITCH_TO_USER_CR3_NOSTACK scratch_reg:req scratch_reg2:req
> ALTERNATIVE "jmp .Lend_\@", "", X86_FEATURE_PTI
> +
> + /* The "pti_disable" mm attribute is mirrored into this per-cpu var */
> + cmpb $0, PER_CPU_VAR(pti_disable)
> + jne .Lend_\@

Could you please do this small change for future iterations:

s/per-cpu
/per-CPU

... to make the spelling more consistent with the rest of the code base?

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-14 23:20    [W:0.313 / U:0.084 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site