Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 17 Jul 2020 12:06:10 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     ira.weiny@intel.com
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 17/17] x86/entry: Preserve PKRS MSR across
 exceptions
Message-ID: <20200717100610.GH10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200717072056.73134-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20200717072056.73134-18-ira.weiny@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200717072056.73134-18-ira.weiny@intel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:56AM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> First I'm not sure if adding this state to idtentry_state and having
> that state copied is the right way to go.  It seems like we should start
> passing this by reference instead of value.  But for now this works as
> an RFC.  Comments?

As long as you keep sizeof(struct idtentry_state_t) <= sizeof(u64) or
possibly 2*sizeof(unsigned long), code gen shouldn't be too horrid IIRC.
You'll have to look at what the compiler makes of it.

> Second, I'm not 100% happy with having to save the reference count in
> the exception handler.  It seems like a very ugly layering violation but
> I don't see a way around it at the moment.

So I've been struggling with that API, all the way from
pks_update_protection() to that dev_access_{en,dis}able(). I _really_
hate it, but I see how you ended up with it.

I wanted to propose something like:

u32 current_pkey_save(int pkey, unsigned flags)
{
	u32 *lpkr = get_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	u32 pkr, saved = *lpkr;

	pkr = update_pkey_reg(saved, pkey, flags);
	if (pkr != saved)
		wrpkr(pkr);

	put_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	return saved;
}

void current_pkey_restore(u32 pkr)
{
	u32 *lpkr = get_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
	if (*lpkr != pkr)
		wrpkr(pkr);
	put_cpu_ptr(&local_pkr);
}

Together with:

void pkey_switch(struct task_struct *prev, struct task_struct *next)
{
	prev->pkr = this_cpu_read(local_pkr);
	if (prev->pkr != next->pkr)
		wrpkr(next->pkr);
}

But that's actually hard to frob into the kmap() model :-( The upside is
that you only have 1 word of state, instead of the 2 you have now.

> Third, this patch has gone through a couple of revisions as I've had
> crashes which just don't make sense to me.  One particular issue I've
> had is taking a MCE during memcpy_mcsafe causing my WARN_ON() to fire.
> The code path was a pmem copy and the ref count should have been
> elevated due to dev_access_enable() but why was
> idtentry_enter()->idt_save_pkrs() not called I don't know.

Because MCEs are NMI-like and don't go through the normal interrupt
path. MCEs are an abomination, please wear all the protective devices
you can lay hands on when delving into that.