Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 20 Jan 2018 17:31:30 +0100
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: Avoid CR3 load on compatibility mode with PTI
Message-ID: <20180120163130.GA26410@1wt.eu>
References: <20180114201306.3554-1-namit@vmware.com>
 <57a8fa6b-a1d1-d440-ce13-b1d06d265584@linux.intel.com>
 <3D823F02-89EF-48D9-913D-5E65391F6F9D@gmail.com>
 <20180116004128.us5uprkzrr5gf4li@gmail.com>
 <5D6CD440-B20F-4ABF-8B02-EE87205B661D@gmail.com>
 <20180120142627.jttjdsenwsedvle6@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180120142627.jttjdsenwsedvle6@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 03:26:27PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > > So we are trading a 5-15% slowdown (PTI) for another 5-15% slowdown, plus we 
> > > are losing the soft-SMEP feature on older CPUs that PTI enables, which is a 
> > > pretty powerful mitigation technique.
> > 
> > This soft-SMEP can be kept by keeping PTI if SMEP is unsupported. Although we 
> > trade slowdowns, they are different ones, which allows the user to make his best 
> > decision.
> 
> Indeed, not allowing PTI to be disabled if SMEP is unavailable might be a 
> solution.

Well, I do not agree with this, for the simple reason that the SMEP-like
protection provided by PTI was in fact a byproduct of the Meltdown
mitigation, eventhough quite a valuable one. For me, disabling PTI means
"I want to recover the performance I had on this workload before the PTI
fixes because I value performance over security". By doing it per process
we'll allow users to have both performance for a few processes and
protection (including SMEP-like) for the rest of the system. Their only
other choice will be to completely disable PTI, thus removing all
protection and losing the SMEP emulation.

Best regards,
Willy