Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] x86/split_lock: Rework the initialization flow of split lock detection | From | Xiaoyao Li <> | Date | Mon, 30 Mar 2020 21:26:25 +0800 |
| |
On 3/29/2020 12:32 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:09:23AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote: >> static void __init split_lock_setup(void) >> { >> + enum split_lock_detect_state state = sld_warn; >> char arg[20]; >> int i, ret; >> >> - setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT); >> - sld_state = sld_warn; >> + if (!split_lock_verify_msr(false)) { >> + pr_info("MSR access failed: Disabled\n"); > > A few nits on the error handling. > > The error message for this is a bit wonky, lots of colons and it's not > super clear what "Disabled" refers to. > > [ 0.000000] x86/split lock detection: MSR access failed: Disabled > > Maybe this, so that it reads "split lock detection disabled because the MSR > access failed". > > pr_info("Disabled, MSR access failed\n"); > > And rather than duplicate the error message, maybe use a goto, e.g. > > if (!split_lock_verify_msr(false)) > goto msr_failed; > > ... > > if (!split_lock_verify_msr(true)) > goto msr_failed; >
Will do it in next version.
thanks
>> + return; >> + } >> >> ret = cmdline_find_option(boot_command_line, "split_lock_detect", >> arg, sizeof(arg)); >> if (ret >= 0) { >> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sld_options); i++) { >> if (match_option(arg, ret, sld_options[i].option)) { >> - sld_state = sld_options[i].state; >> + state = sld_options[i].state; >> break; >> } >> } >> } >> >> - switch (sld_state) { >> + switch (state) { >> case sld_off: >> pr_info("disabled\n"); >> - break; >> - >> + return; >> case sld_warn: >> pr_info("warning about user-space split_locks\n"); >> break; >> - >> case sld_fatal: >> pr_info("sending SIGBUS on user-space split_locks\n"); >> break; >> } >> + >> + if (!split_lock_verify_msr(true)) { >> + pr_info("MSR access failed: Disabled\n"); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + sld_state = state; >> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT); >> } >> >> /* >> - * Locking is not required at the moment because only bit 29 of this >> - * MSR is implemented and locking would not prevent that the operation >> - * of one thread is immediately undone by the sibling thread. >> - * Use the "safe" versions of rdmsr/wrmsr here because although code >> - * checks CPUID and MSR bits to make sure the TEST_CTRL MSR should >> - * exist, there may be glitches in virtualization that leave a guest >> - * with an incorrect view of real h/w capabilities. >> + * MSR_TEST_CTRL is per core, but we treat it like a per CPU MSR. Locking >> + * is not implemented as one thread could undo the setting of the other >> + * thread immediately after dropping the lock anyway. >> */ >> -static bool __sld_msr_set(bool on) >> +static void sld_update_msr(bool on) >> { >> u64 test_ctrl_val; >> >> - if (rdmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, &test_ctrl_val)) >> - return false; >> + rdmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val); >> >> if (on) >> test_ctrl_val |= MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT; >> else >> test_ctrl_val &= ~MSR_TEST_CTRL_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT; >> >> - return !wrmsrl_safe(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val); >> + wrmsrl(MSR_TEST_CTRL, test_ctrl_val); >> } >> >> static void split_lock_init(void) >> { >> - if (sld_state == sld_off) >> - return; >> - >> - if (__sld_msr_set(true)) >> - return; >> - >> - /* >> - * If this is anything other than the boot-cpu, you've done >> - * funny things and you get to keep whatever pieces. >> - */ >> - pr_warn("MSR fail -- disabled\n"); >> - sld_state = sld_off; >> + split_lock_verify_msr(sld_state != sld_off); > > I think it'd be worth a WARN_ON() if this fails with sld_state != off. If > the WRMSR fails, then presumably SLD is off when it's expected to be on. > The implied WARN on the unsafe WRMSR in sld_update_msr() won't fire unless > a task generates an #AC on a non-buggy core and then gets migrated to the > buggy core. Even if the WARNs are redundant, if something is wrong it'd be > a lot easier for a user to triage/debug if there is a WARN in boot as > opposed to a runtime WARN that requires a misbehaving application and > scheduler behavior. >
IIUC, you're recommending something like below?
WARN_ON(!split_lock_verify_msr(sld_state != sld_off) && sld_state != sld_off);
>> } >> >> bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code) >> @@ -1071,7 +1083,7 @@ bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code) >> * progress and set TIF_SLD so the detection is re-enabled via >> * switch_to_sld() when the task is scheduled out. >> */ >> - __sld_msr_set(false); >> + sld_update_msr(false); >> set_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SLD); >> return true; >> } >> @@ -1085,7 +1097,7 @@ bool handle_user_split_lock(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code) >> */ >> void switch_to_sld(unsigned long tifn) >> { >> - __sld_msr_set(!(tifn & _TIF_SLD)); >> + sld_update_msr(!(tifn & _TIF_SLD)); >> } >> >> #define SPLIT_LOCK_CPU(model) {X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, model, X86_FEATURE_ANY} >> -- >> 2.20.1 >>
|  |