lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/2] x86: Fix missing core serialization on migration
----- On Nov 10, 2017, at 4:57 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:

> ----- On Nov 10, 2017, at 4:36 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 1:12 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers
>> <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> wrote:
>>> x86 can return to user-space through sysexit and sysretq, which are not
>>> core serializing. This breaks expectations from user-space about
>>> sequential consistency from a single-threaded self-modifying program
>>> point of view in specific migration patterns.
>>>
>>> Feedback is welcome,
>>
>> We should check with Intel. I would actually be surprised if the I$
>> can be out of sync with the D$ after a sysretq. It would actually
>> break things like "read code from disk" too in theory.
>
> That core serializing instruction is not that much about I$ vs D$
> consistency, but rather about the processor speculatively executing code
> ahead of its retirement point. Ref. Intel Architecture Software Developer's
> Manual, Volume 3: System Programming.
>
> 7.1.3. "Handling Self- and Cross-Modifying Code":
>
> "The act of a processor writing data into a currently executing code segment
> with the intent of
> executing that data as code is called self-modifying code. Intel Architecture
> processors exhibit
> model-specific behavior when executing self-modified code, depending upon how
> far ahead of
> the current execution pointer the code has been modified. As processor
> architectures become
> more complex and start to speculatively execute code ahead of the retirement
> point (as in the P6
> family processors), the rules regarding which code should execute, pre- or
> post-modification,
> become blurred. [...]"
>
> AFAIU, this core serializing instruction seems to be needed for use-cases of
> self-modifying code, but not for the initial load of a program from disk,
> as the processor has no way to have speculatively executed any of its
> instructions.

I figured out what you're pointing to: if exec() is executed by a previously
running thread, and there is no core serializing instruction between program
load and return to user-space, the kernel ends up acting like a JIT, indeed.

Therefore, we'd also need to invoke sync_core_before_usermode() after loading
the program.

Let's wait to hear back from hpa,

Thanks,

Mathieu


>
> Hopefully hpa can tell us more about this,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mathieu
>
>
> --
> Mathieu Desnoyers
> EfficiOS Inc.
> http://www.efficios.com

--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-13 17:58    [W:0.103 / U:1.488 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site