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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <02bfc577-32a5-66be-64bf-d476b7d447d2@kernel.dk>
 <20181121063609.GA109082@gmail.com> <48e27a3a-2bb2-ff41-3512-8aeb3fd59e57@kernel.dk>
 <1c22125bb5d22c2dcd686d0d3b390f115894f746.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgnjB+=o0771=J_YkQzabU5aadh6pN3x9Vk4HPs3MHL3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjweUiVewcnk39mUccEN-SjxHeTZdB3VOXZrvvW4Cs3dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wiDLq5CVnTJhFNEEduqYP_VSsQPSNvi=w6a8Y9figuh7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181122103231.GA102790@gmail.com> <CAHk-=wjG=hvKnsRByogG_7Pwwi+7UQ1AK52m5bTp9dUHhAOzfw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjG=hvKnsRByogG_7Pwwi+7UQ1AK52m5bTp9dUHhAOzfw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 22 Nov 2018 09:26:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrXtXfD9=H_jqz2DowmEdeUBXOxA5zk4xVNmiK0RzJVZxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: only use ERMS for user copies for larger sizes
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, pabeni@redhat.com,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 8:56 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 2:32 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Random patch (with my "asm goto" hack included) attached, in case
> > > people want to play with it.
> >
> > Doesn't even look all that hacky to me. Any hack in it that I didn't
> > notice? :-)
>
> The code to use asm goto sadly doesn't have any fallback at all for
> the "no asm goto available".
>
> I guess we're getting close to "we require asm goto support", but I
> don't think we're there yet.

commit e501ce957a786ecd076ea0cfb10b114e6e4d0f40
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed Jan 17 11:42:07 2018 +0100

    x86: Force asm-goto

    We want to start using asm-goto to guarantee the absence of dynamic
    branches (and thus speculation).

    A primary prerequisite for this is of course that the compiler
    supports asm-goto. This effecively lifts the minimum GCC version to
    build an x86 kernel to gcc-4.5.

This is basically the only good outcome from the speculation crap as
far as I'm concerned :)

So I think your patch is viable.  Also, with that patch applied,
put_user_ex() should become worse than worthless -- if gcc is any
good, plain old:

if (unsafe_put_user(...) != 0)
  goto err;
if (unsafe_put_user(...) != 0)
  goto err;
etc.

will generate *better* code than a series of put_user_ex() calls.