Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 20:53:44 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64, asm: Work around AMD SYSRET SS descriptor
 attribute issue
Message-ID: <20150427185344.GI28871@pd.tnic>
References: <CALCETrWvqyCYOzCYXz7ZnzaM0obbidqo5CxVp2Hn1ELEiC3m3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150427085305.GB6774@pd.tnic>
 <20150427113506.GG6774@pd.tnic>
 <CA+55aFykNBrdHFSVeLftG7Ujx4Tk=MuUJXD2rNYn9kwL+kLN5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150427154631.GB28871@pd.tnic>
 <CA+55aFxWyhc+ax_jnqH9zsvqruL63gcePMbRQGJ_wM06e1QKpA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150427164024.GD28871@pd.tnic>
 <CA+55aFySbPjeCgetxeSQPSP-h+yKnrHPcTGuoorAHJbCj53-8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150427183854.GG28871@pd.tnic>
 <CA+55aFzYz=b887TLTuJ1u6Fv3B0eeXtnx+XzojJ8BBqm+Eha_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzYz=b887TLTuJ1u6Fv3B0eeXtnx+XzojJ8BBqm+Eha_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2045
Lines: 59

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:47:30AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> >
> > So our current NOP-infrastructure does ASM_NOP_MAX NOPs of 8 bytes so
> > without more invasive changes, our longest NOPs are 8 byte long and then
> > we have to repeat.
> 
> Btw (and I'm too lazy to check) do we take alignment into account?
> 
> Because if you have to split, and use multiple nops, it is *probably*
> a good idea to try to avoid 16-byte boundaries, since that's can be
> the I$ fetch granularity from L1 (although I guess 32B is getting more
> common).

Yeah, on F16h you have 32B fetch but the paths later in the machine
gets narrower, so to speak.

> So the exact split might depend on the alignment of the nop replacement..

Yeah, no. Our add_nops() is trivial:

/* Use this to add nops to a buffer, then text_poke the whole buffer. */
static void __init_or_module add_nops(void *insns, unsigned int len)
{
        while (len > 0) {
                unsigned int noplen = len;
                if (noplen > ASM_NOP_MAX)
                        noplen = ASM_NOP_MAX;
                memcpy(insns, ideal_nops[noplen], noplen);
                insns += noplen;
                len -= noplen;
        }
}

> Can we perhaps get rid of the distinction entirely, and just use one
> set of 64-bit nops for both Intel/AMD?

I *think* hpa would have an opinion here. I'm judging by looking at
comments like this one in the code:

        /*
         * Due to a decoder implementation quirk, some
         * specific Intel CPUs actually perform better with
         * the "k8_nops" than with the SDM-recommended NOPs.
         */

which is a fun one in itself. :-)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/