* Kyle Huey <[email protected]> wrote:
> rr (http://rr-project.org/), a userspace record-and-replay reverse-
> execution debugger, would like to trap and emulate the CPUID instruction.
> This would allow us to a) mask away certain hardware features that rr does
> not support (e.g. RDRAND) and b) enable trace portability across machines
> by providing constant results.
>
> Newer Intel CPUs (Ivy Bridge and later) can fault when CPUID is executed at
> CPL > 0. Expose this capability to userspace as a new pair of arch_prctls,
> ARCH_GET_CPUID and ARCH_SET_CPUID.
>
> Since v12:
> Patch 4: x86/syscalls/32: Wire up arch_prctl on x86-32
> - compat_sys_arch_prctl prototype has argument names.
So while I am fine with the feature, I'm still unconvinced about the
implementation:
1)
As I pointed out before, the arbitrary 'code' argument name x86-ism should be
changed to 'option' like the canonical core kernel option name is for prctls().
This is still unfixed.
2)
As I complained about in my first review, TIF_NOCPUID flag is too far removed
from
the value what will be written into the MSR.
The result is poor code generation on 64-bit defconfig+CONFIG_PREEMPT=y:
if (test_tsk_thread_flag(prev_p, TIF_NOCPUID) ^
test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOCPUID)) {
set_cpuid_faulting(test_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_NOCPUID));
is compiled as:
476: 49 8b 06 mov (%r14),%rax
479: 49 8b 55 00 mov 0x0(%r13),%rdx
47d: 48 c1 e8 0f shr $0xf,%rax
481: 48 c1 ea 0f shr $0xf,%rdx
485: 83 e2 01 and $0x1,%edx
488: 83 e0 01 and $0x1,%eax
48b: 38 c2 cmp %al,%dl
48d: 74 10 je 49f <__switch_to_xtra+0x9f>
48f: 49 8b 7d 00 mov 0x0(%r13),%rdi
493: 48 c1 ef 0f shr $0xf,%rdi
497: 83 e7 01 and $0x1,%edi
49a: e8 61 fb ff ff callq 0 <set_cpuid_faulting>
... the first 7 instructions burdens all __switch_to_xtra() users, not just the
faulting-CPUID users.
The set_cpuid_faulting() call is also unnecessary and the set_cpuid_faulting()
call generates into an obscene sequence of:
0000000000000000 <set_cpuid_faulting>:
0: 8b 15 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%edx # 6
<set_cpuid_faulting+0x6>
6: 55 push %rbp
7: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
a: 53 push %rbx
b: 40 0f b6 df movzbl %dil,%ebx
f: 85 d2 test %edx,%edx
11: 75 07 jne 1a <set_cpuid_faulting+0x1a>
13: 9c pushfq
14: 58 pop %rax
15: f6 c4 02 test $0x2,%ah
18: 75 48 jne 62 <set_cpuid_faulting+0x62>
1a: 65 48 8b 05 00 00 00 mov %gs:0x0(%rip),%rax # 22
<set_cpuid_faulting+0x22>
21: 00
22: 48 83 e0 fe and $0xfffffffffffffffe,%rax
26: b9 40 01 00 00 mov $0x140,%ecx
2b: 48 09 d8 or %rbx,%rax
2e: 48 89 c2 mov %rax,%rdx
31: 65 48 89 05 00 00 00 mov %rax,%gs:0x0(%rip) # 39
<set_cpuid_faulting+0x39>
38: 00
39: 48 c1 ea 20 shr $0x20,%rdx
3d: 0f 30 wrmsr
3f: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
44: 5b pop %rbx
45: 5d pop %rbp
46: c3 retq
47: 48 c1 e2 20 shl $0x20,%rdx
4b: 89 c0 mov %eax,%eax
4d: bf 40 01 00 00 mov $0x140,%edi
52: 48 09 d0 or %rdx,%rax
55: 31 d2 xor %edx,%edx
57: 48 89 c6 mov %rax,%rsi
5a: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5f <set_cpuid_faulting+0x5f>
5f: 5b pop %rbx
60: 5d pop %rbp
61: c3 retq
62: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 67 <set_cpuid_faulting+0x67>
67: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
69: 74 af je 1a <set_cpuid_faulting+0x1a>
6b: 8b 05 00 00 00 00 mov 0x0(%rip),%eax # 71
<set_cpuid_faulting+0x71>
71: 85 c0 test %eax,%eax
73: 75 a5 jne 1a <set_cpuid_faulting+0x1a>
75: 48 c7 c1 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rcx
7c: 48 c7 c2 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdx
83: be b9 00 00 00 mov $0xb9,%esi
88: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
8f: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 94 <set_cpuid_faulting+0x94>
94: eb 84 jmp 1a <set_cpuid_faulting+0x1a>
96: 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
9d: 00 00 00
The affected object file code size blows up as well, by 17%:
arch/x86/kernel/process.o:
text data bss dec hex filename
3325 8577 32 11934 2e9e process.o.before
3889 8609 32 12530 30f2 process.o.after
A good deal of this overhead and complexity comes from the implementation
inefficiency I pointed out, and all this can be avoided with the method I
suggested in my previous review, by caching the per task MSR value in the
thread
struct.
So sorry, NAK for this implementation - especially considering how relatively
straightforward the changes I suggested are to implement.
Thanks,
Ingo
