diff options
author | Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@igalia.com> | 2022-10-24 23:02:54 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> | 2022-11-10 21:14:22 +0300 |
commit | 727209376f4998bc84db1d5d8af15afea846a92b (patch) | |
tree | 2b2fded84745e2f1e1dae384f3f09cc4fb4e154a /arch | |
parent | f0c4d9fc9cc9462659728d168387191387e903cc (diff) | |
download | linux-727209376f4998bc84db1d5d8af15afea846a92b.tar.xz |
x86/split_lock: Add sysctl to control the misery mode
Commit b041b525dab9 ("x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for split lockers")
changed the way the split lock detector works when in "warn" mode;
basically, it not only shows the warn message, but also intentionally
introduces a slowdown through sleeping plus serialization mechanism
on such task. Based on discussions in [0], seems the warning alone
wasn't enough motivation for userspace developers to fix their
applications.
This slowdown is enough to totally break some proprietary (aka.
unfixable) userspace[1].
Happens that originally the proposal in [0] was to add a new mode
which would warns + slowdown the "split locking" task, keeping the
old warn mode untouched. In the end, that idea was discarded and
the regular/default "warn" mode now slows down the applications. This
is quite aggressive with regards proprietary/legacy programs that
basically are unable to properly run in kernel with this change.
While it is understandable that a malicious application could DoS
by split locking, it seems unacceptable to regress old/proprietary
userspace programs through a default configuration that previously
worked. An example of such breakage was reported in [1].
Add a sysctl to allow controlling the "misery mode" behavior, as per
Thomas suggestion on [2]. This way, users running legacy and/or
proprietary software are allowed to still execute them with a decent
performance while still observing the warning messages on kernel log.
[0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220217012721.9694-1-tony.luck@intel.com/
[1] https://github.com/doitsujin/dxvk/issues/2938
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/87pmf4bter.ffs@tglx/
[ dhansen: minor changelog tweaks, including clarifying the actual
problem ]
Fixes: b041b525dab9 ("x86/split_lock: Make life miserable for split lockers")
Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Guilherme G. Piccoli <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Tested-by: Andre Almeida <andrealmeid@igalia.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221024200254.635256-1-gpiccoli%40igalia.com
Diffstat (limited to 'arch')
-rw-r--r-- | arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c | 63 |
1 files changed, 53 insertions, 10 deletions
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c index 2d7ea5480ec3..427899650483 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c @@ -1034,8 +1034,32 @@ static const struct { static struct ratelimit_state bld_ratelimit; +static unsigned int sysctl_sld_mitigate = 1; static DEFINE_SEMAPHORE(buslock_sem); +#ifdef CONFIG_PROC_SYSCTL +static struct ctl_table sld_sysctls[] = { + { + .procname = "split_lock_mitigate", + .data = &sysctl_sld_mitigate, + .maxlen = sizeof(unsigned int), + .mode = 0644, + .proc_handler = proc_douintvec_minmax, + .extra1 = SYSCTL_ZERO, + .extra2 = SYSCTL_ONE, + }, + {} +}; + +static int __init sld_mitigate_sysctl_init(void) +{ + register_sysctl_init("kernel", sld_sysctls); + return 0; +} + +late_initcall(sld_mitigate_sysctl_init); +#endif + static inline bool match_option(const char *arg, int arglen, const char *opt) { int len = strlen(opt), ratelimit; @@ -1146,12 +1170,20 @@ static void split_lock_init(void) split_lock_verify_msr(sld_state != sld_off); } -static void __split_lock_reenable(struct work_struct *work) +static void __split_lock_reenable_unlock(struct work_struct *work) { sld_update_msr(true); up(&buslock_sem); } +static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(sl_reenable_unlock, __split_lock_reenable_unlock); + +static void __split_lock_reenable(struct work_struct *work) +{ + sld_update_msr(true); +} +static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(sl_reenable, __split_lock_reenable); + /* * If a CPU goes offline with pending delayed work to re-enable split lock * detection then the delayed work will be executed on some other CPU. That @@ -1169,10 +1201,9 @@ static int splitlock_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu) return 0; } -static DECLARE_DELAYED_WORK(split_lock_reenable, __split_lock_reenable); - static void split_lock_warn(unsigned long ip) { + struct delayed_work *work; int cpu; if (!current->reported_split_lock) @@ -1180,14 +1211,26 @@ static void split_lock_warn(unsigned long ip) current->comm, current->pid, ip); current->reported_split_lock = 1; - /* misery factor #1, sleep 10ms before trying to execute split lock */ - if (msleep_interruptible(10) > 0) - return; - /* Misery factor #2, only allow one buslocked disabled core at a time */ - if (down_interruptible(&buslock_sem) == -EINTR) - return; + if (sysctl_sld_mitigate) { + /* + * misery factor #1: + * sleep 10ms before trying to execute split lock. + */ + if (msleep_interruptible(10) > 0) + return; + /* + * Misery factor #2: + * only allow one buslocked disabled core at a time. + */ + if (down_interruptible(&buslock_sem) == -EINTR) + return; + work = &sl_reenable_unlock; + } else { + work = &sl_reenable; + } + cpu = get_cpu(); - schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, &split_lock_reenable, 2); + schedule_delayed_work_on(cpu, work, 2); /* Disable split lock detection on this CPU to make progress */ sld_update_msr(false); |