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:   Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:17:57 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc:     Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org>, maz@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: Set SSBS for user threads while creation
Message-ID: <20200109151756.GG12236@willie-the-truck>
References: <1577106146-8999-1-git-send-email-sramana@codeaurora.org>
 <20200102180145.GE27940@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200102180145.GE27940@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 06:01:45PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 06:32:26PM +0530, Srinivas Ramana wrote:
> > Current SSBS implementation takes care of setting the
> > SSBS bit in start_thread() for user threads. While this works
> > for tasks launched with fork/clone followed by execve, for cases
> > where userspace would just call fork (eg, Java applications) this
> > leaves the SSBS bit unset. This results in performance
> > regression for such tasks.
> > 
> > It is understood that commit cbdf8a189a66 ("arm64: Force SSBS
> > on context switch") masks this issue, but that was done for a
> > different reason where heterogeneous CPUs(both SSBS supported
> > and unsupported) are present. It is appropriate to take care
> > of the SSBS bit for all threads while creation itself.
> > 
> > Fixes: 8f04e8e6e29c ("arm64: ssbd: Add support for PSTATE.SSBS rather than trapping to EL3")
> > Signed-off-by: Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org>
> 
> I suppose the parent process cleared SSBS explicitly. Isn't the child
> after fork() supposed to be nearly identical to the parent? If we did as
> you suggest, someone else might complain that SSBS has been set in the
> child after fork().

Right, I'd expect the parent SSBS to be inherited when we copy the pstate
field along with the other regs, and I think this is the correct behaviour.

Is that broken somehow?

Will