Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221130020815.283814-1-Jason@zx2c4.com> <Y4biVHVPhVyVJ6Fc@sol.localdomain>
 <Y4cqpwwbNBKhdidq@zx2c4.com> <Y4en9fSll1vSY4Bt@gmail.com> <CAHmME9p63Cpi4273OMFB=8F3+CfEfMUxZ4vV=xjWqxQ=frr34Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y4e0SwkUYANw1at7@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Y4e0SwkUYANw1at7@gmail.com>
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 20:54:54 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHmME9rFNXpCrmoQ7Uk1T3ykVj2-ap_TCerDMSjLMyADh3XJAA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] random: align entropy_timer_state to cache line
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sultan Alsawaf <sultan@kerneltoast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Eric,

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 8:51 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 08:31:33PM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 7:59 PM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 11:04:23AM +0100, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/char/random.c b/drivers/char/random.c
> > > > > > index 67558b95d531..2494e08c76d8 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/char/random.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/char/random.c
> > > > > > @@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@ static void __cold entropy_timer(struct timer_list *timer)
> > > > > >  static void __cold try_to_generate_entropy(void)
> > > > > >  {
> > > > > >   enum { NUM_TRIAL_SAMPLES = 8192, MAX_SAMPLES_PER_BIT = HZ / 15 };
> > > > > > - struct entropy_timer_state stack;
> > > > > > + struct entropy_timer_state stack ____cacheline_aligned;
> > > > >
> > > > > Several years ago, there was a whole thing about how __attribute__((aligned)) to
> > > > > more than 8 bytes doesn't actually work on stack variables in the kernel on x86,
> > > > > because the kernel only keeps the stack 8-byte aligned but gcc assumes it is
> > > > > 16-byte aligned.  See
> > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-crypto/20170110143340.GA3787@gondor.apana.org.au/T/#t
> > > > >
> > > > > IIRC, nothing was done about it at the time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Has that been resolved in the intervening years?
> > > >
> > > > Maybe things are different for ____cacheline_aligned, which is 64 bytes.
> > > > Reading that thread, it looks like it was a case of trying to align the
> > > > stack to 16 bytes, but gcc assumed 16 bytes already while the kernel
> > > > only gave it 8. So gcc didn't think it needed to emit any code to align
> > > > it. Here, though, it's 64, and gcc certainly isn't assuming 64-byte
> > > > stack alignment.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the codegen, gcc appears to doing `rsp = (rsp & ~63) - 64`,
> > > > which appears correct.
> > >
> > > Well, if gcc thinks the stack is already 16-byte aligned, then it would be
> > > perfectly within its rights to do 'rsp = (rsp & ~47) - 64', right?  You probably
> > > don't want to be relying on an implementation detail of gcc codegen...
> >
> > The really pathological one would be ~48, which would just clear those
> > two extra bits. I can't imagine gcc or clang ever deciding to do that.
> > But I guess they could?
> >
> > What would you recommend here? kmalloc'ing it instead? Keeping things
> > as is with ____cacheline_aligned, since this has always been broken,
> > and it's not the end of the world? Something else?
>
> Well, other places in the kernel do the alignment manually:
>
>         u8 __stack[sizeof(struct entropy_timer_state) + SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1];
>         struct entropy_timer_state *stack = (void *)PTR_ALIGN(__stack, SMP_CACHE_BYTES);
>
> It's silly, but I'm not aware of a better option.

Well alright then, why not. I'll send a v2.

Jason