MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAObL_7HdWs2hoNYd0gKzh6iVJr293Z9p+Dg1C6u+5GYQiDfgnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAObL_7EJi5+m-oDXRy4hu+-OTZ=9wZ9WEivTMsdDtccU00wfWA@mail.gmail.com>
	<5355A9E9.9070102@zytor.com>
	<CAObL_7EP+zPpx9TVgsSu2iFN+r0U8yy6UEZtdk=CPwowXUu=Qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1dbe8155-58da-45c2-9dc0-d9f4b5a6e643@email.android.com>
	<CAObL_7FUDpV9md+UnDbXxWw=trrXLFLNNJMNegdezrQt7rm6TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<a035392c-f332-4b3f-b851-13b0c7a0fc68@email.android.com>
	<CAObL_7FMX9yaGVi19pVwsU5VwHqKLLWMEB7kwDF-fatsGnHvdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee12ff5e-91fe-487b-bed9-4472f15f94fe@email.android.com>
	<CAObL_7HTDvN2zu2_CDnVR_ztZ-b7PfLYz0csuVX-ShQ7EHGEjg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140422112312.GB15882@pd.tnic>
	<20140422144659.GF15882@pd.tnic>
	<CAObL_7FGs4n6zusbdwTLi5W5q2V81Sf7pOnOmHPFyv5d7jMfvA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53569467.1030809@zytor.com>
	<CAObL_7F9yxt=vXjbssYB5wjZ7HUyKcstG7KYaRWxDDK0n7_vQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFyg1n6=Lnp_qhqdGESoP3u-sv_+MbvSdT4MEutGQAJESg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAObL_7HdWs2hoNYd0gKzh6iVJr293Z9p+Dg1C6u+5GYQiDfgnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:04:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzRf2Dhh3Eea1E74cpD9DXijUHpsXa71AURy_n6F_JKbw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: espfix for 64-bit mode *PROTOTYPE*
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@gmail.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alexander van Heukelum <heukelum@fastmail.fm>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@intel.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Alexandre Julliard <julliard@winehq.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <amluto@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> My point is that it may be safe to remove the special espfix fixup
> from #PF, which is probably the most performance-critical piece here,
> aside from iret itself.

Actually, even that is unsafe.

Why?

The segment table is shared for a process. So you can have one thread
doing a load_ldt() that invalidates a segment, while another thread is
busy taking a page fault. The segment was valid at page fault time and
is saved on the kernel stack, but by the time the page fault returns,
it is no longer valid and the iretq will fault.

Anyway, if done correctly, this whole espfix should be totally free
for normal processes, since it should only trigger if SS is a LDT
entry (bit #2 set in the segment descriptor). So the normal fast-path
should just have a simple test for that.

And if you have a SS that is a descriptor in the LDT, nobody cares
about performance any more.

             Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/