lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 12/12] x86/traps: Fix up invalid PASID
Hi, Peter,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:31:16PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 11:12:59AM -0700, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> > > I don't get why you need a rdmsr here, or why not having one would
> > > require a TIF flag. Is that because this MSR is XSAVE/XRSTOR managed?
> >
> > My concern is TIF flags are precious (only 3 slots available). Defining
> > a new TIF flag may be not worth it while rdmsr() can check if PASID
> > is valid in the MSR. And performance here might not be a big issue
> > in #GP.
> >
> > But if you think using TIF flag is better, I can define a new TIF flag
> > and maintain it per thread (init 0 when clone()/fork(), set 1 in fixup()).
> > Then we can avoid using rdmsr() to check valid PASID in the MSR.
>
> WHY ?!?! What do you need a TIF flag for?

We need "a way" to check if the per thread MSR has a valid PASID. If yes,
no need to fix up the MSR (wrmsr()), and let other handler to handle the #GP.
Otherwise, apply the heuristics and fix up the MSR and exit the #GP.

The way to check the valid PASID in the MSR is rdmsr() in this series.
A TIF flag will be much faster than rdmsr() and seems a sutiable way
to check valid PASID status per thread. That's why it could replace
rdmsr() to check PASID in the MSR.

Or do you suggest to add a random new flag in struct thread_info instead
of a TIF flag?

Thanks.

-Fenghua

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-15 20:56    [W:0.088 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site