lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/8] x86/split_lock: Ensure X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT means the existence of feature
From
Date
On 3/6/2020 12:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 09:49:14AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>> On 3/4/2020 3:41 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 10:55:24AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 03:04:06PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>>>> When flag X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT is set, it should ensure the
>>>>> existence of MSR_TEST_CTRL and MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT bit.
>>>>
>>>> The changelog confused me a bit. "When flag X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT
>>>> is set" makes it sound like the logic is being applied after the feature
>>>> bit is set. Maybe something like:
>>>>
>>>> ```
>>>> Verify MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT can be toggled via WRMSR prior to
>>>> setting the SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT feature bit so that runtime consumers,
>>>> e.g. KVM, don't need to worry about WRMSR failure.
>>>> ```
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
>>>>> index 2b3874a96bd4..49535ed81c22 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c
>>>>> @@ -702,7 +702,8 @@ static void init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>>>>> if (tsx_ctrl_state == TSX_CTRL_DISABLE)
>>>>> tsx_disable();
>>>>> - split_lock_init();
>>>>> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))
>>>>> + split_lock_init();
>>>>> }
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
>>>>> @@ -986,9 +987,26 @@ static inline bool match_option(const char *arg, int arglen, const char *opt)
>>>>> static void __init split_lock_setup(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + u64 test_ctrl_val;
>>>>> char arg[20];
>>>>> int i, ret;
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Use the "safe" versions of rdmsr/wrmsr here to ensure MSR_TEST_CTRL
>>>>> + * and MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT bit do exist. Because there may
>>>>> + * be glitches in virtualization that leave a guest with an incorrect
>>>>> + * view of real h/w capabilities.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &test_ctrl_val))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL,
>>>>> + test_ctrl_val | MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val))
>>>>> + return;a
>>>>
>>>> Probing the MSR should be skipped if SLD is disabled in sld_options, i.e.
>>>> move this code (and setup_force_cpu_cap() etc...) down below the
>>>> match_option() logic. The above would temporarily enable SLD even if the
>>>> admin has explicitly disabled it, e.g. makes the kernel param useless for
>>>> turning off the feature due to bugs.
>>>
>>> Hmm, but this prevents KVM from exposing SLD to a guest when it's off in
>>> the kernel, which would be a useful debug/testing scenario.
>>>
>>> Maybe add another SLD state to forcefully disable SLD? That way the admin
>>> can turn of SLD in the host kernel but still allow KVM to expose it to its
>>> guests. E.g.
>>
>> I don't think we need do this.
>>
>> IMO, this a the bug of split_lock_init(), which assume the initial value of
>> MSR_TEST_CTRL is zero, at least bit SPLIT_LOCK of which is zero.
>> This is problem, it's possible that BIOS has set this bit.
>
> Hmm, yeah, that's a bug. But it's a separate bug.
>
>> split_lock_setup() here, is to check if the feature really exists. So
>> probing MSR_TEST_CTRL and bit MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT here. If there
>> all exist, setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT) to indicate
>> feature does exist.
>> Only when feature exists, there is a need to parse the command line config
>> of split_lock_detect.
>
> Toggling SPLIT_LOCK before checking the kernel param is bad behavior, e.g.
> if someone has broken silicon that causes explosions if SPLIT_LOCK=1. The
> behavior is especially bad because cpu_set_core_cap_bits() enumerates split
> lock detection using FMS, i.e. clearcpuid to kill CORE_CAPABILITIES
> wouldn't work either.
>

It makes things complicated when we take all into account.

We check kernel param first in BSP, if it's sld_off, we don't set flag
X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT. Of course during APs booting, there is no
X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT, it won't do split_lock_init().

However, due to X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT flag not being set,
clearing SLD bit in each AP when sld_off in case BIOS has set it, won't
work. So in split_lock_setup() here, if sld_off, we don't set flag
X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT, and we also need to send IPI to each AP
to clear SLD bit ?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-06 03:16    [W:0.077 / U:10.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site