Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-103665-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 akpm@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, bp@alien8.de,
 brauner@kernel.org, bristot@redhat.com, bsegall@google.com,
 dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, dianders@chromium.org,
 dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, eric.devolder@oracle.com, hca@linux.ibm.com,
 hch@infradead.org, hpa@zytor.com, jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com,
 jgg@ziepe.ca, jpoimboe@kernel.org, jroedel@suse.de, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
 kent.overstreet@linux.dev, kinseyho@google.com,
 kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, lstoakes@gmail.com, luto@kernel.org,
 mgorman@suse.de, mic@digikod.net, michael.christie@oracle.com,
 mingo@redhat.com, mjguzik@gmail.com, mst@redhat.com, npiggin@gmail.com,
 peterz@infradead.org, pmladek@suse.com, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com,
 rostedt@goodmis.org, surenb@google.com, urezki@gmail.com,
 vincent.guittot@linaro.org, vschneid@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 11/14] x86: add support for Dynamic Kernel Stacks
In-Reply-To: <CA+CK2bC=6GOkCOwJdhH25r-9hb1BQVoLK7LLAgpm2AKqdmStrg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20240311164638.2015063-1-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <20240311164638.2015063-12-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
 <87v85qo2fj.ffs@tglx>
 <CA+CK2bBgeK=rW3=RJSx8zxST8xnJ-VXSSYmKPVK9gHX3pxEWuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+CK2bAzJuCe06g_TEOh3B-hK+dXfUaGaOSTgzyxkN4zqpSU_A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87bk7inmah.ffs@tglx>
 <CA+CK2bC=6GOkCOwJdhH25r-9hb1BQVoLK7LLAgpm2AKqdmStrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 19:26:09 +0100
Message-ID: <871q8cmzzy.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 14 2024 at 10:03, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2024 at 12:12=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix=
de> wrote:
>> That needs to validate whether anything uses current between the stack
>> switch and the place where current is updated today. I think nothing
>> should do so, but I would not be surprised either if it would be the
>> case. Such code would already today just work by chance I think,
>>
>> That should not be hard to analyze and fixup if necessary.
>>
>> So that's fixable, but I'm not really convinced that all of this is safe
>> and correct under all circumstances. That needs a lot more analysis than
>> just the trivial one I did for switch_to().
>
> Agreed, if the current task pointer can be switched later, after loads
> and stores to the stack, that would be a better solution. I will
> incorporate this approach into my next version.

No. You need to ensure that there is neither a load or store on the
stack between:

        movq    %rsp, TASK_threadsp(%rdi)
        movq    TASK_threadsp(%rsi), %rsp

and update_current(). IOW, you need to move the update of
pcpu_hot.current to ASM right after the RSP switch.

> I also concur that this proposal necessitates more rigorous analysis.

Glad we agree here :)

Thanks,

        tglx