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;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Alexandre Chartre <alexandre.chartre@oracle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
        jan.setjeeilers@oracle.com, Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        oweisse@google.com, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.de>, mgross@linux.intel.com,
        kuzuno@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 12/21] x86/pti: Use PTI stack instead of trampoline stack
In-Reply-To: <a9aa4887-02ee-0e9a-a37e-63e9cb0ff27f@oracle.com>
References: <20201116144757.1920077-1-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> <20201116144757.1920077-13-alexandre.chartre@oracle.com> <CALCETrUSCwtR41CCo_cAQf_BwG7istH6fM=bxWh_VfOjSNFmSw@mail.gmail.com> <bc8a254e-deaa-388e-99ea-0291f5625b5b@oracle.com> <87ft55p3gp.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <a9aa4887-02ee-0e9a-a37e-63e9cb0ff27f@oracle.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Nov 2020 22:20:38 +0100
Message-ID: <87zh3dnivt.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 19 2020 at 20:55, Alexandre Chartre wrote:
> On 11/19/20 8:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Sorry I mixed up a few thing; I got confused with my own code which is not a
> good sign...
>
> It's not sleeping with the user page-table which, as you mentioned, doesn't
> make sense, it's sleeping with the kernel page-table but with the PTI stack.
>
> Basically, it is:
>    - entering C code with (user page-table, PTI stack);
>    - then it switches to the kernel page-table so we have (kernel page-table, PTI stack);
>    - and then it switches to the kernel stack so we have (kernel page-table, kernel stack).
>
> As this is all C code, some of which is executed with the PTI stack, we need the PTI stack
> to be per-task so that the stack is preserved, in case that C code does a sleep/schedule
> (no matter if this happens when using the PTI stack or the kernel stack).

That makes some more sense, but I'm not convinced that this dual stack
is really a good thing.

Thanks,

        tglx