* Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2018, Tim Chen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 09:14:50PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > +static void task_update_spec_tif(struct task_struct *tsk, int tifbit,
> > > bool on)
> > > {
> > > bool update;
> > >
> > > + if (on)
> > > + update = !test_and_set_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, tifbit);
> > > + else
> > > + update = test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag(tsk, tifbit);
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * If being set on non-current task, delay setting the CPU
> > > + * mitigation until it is scheduled next.
> > > + */
> > > + if (tsk == current && update)
> > > + speculation_ctrl_update_current();
> >
> > I think all the call paths from prctl and seccomp coming here
> > has tsk == current.
>
> We had that discussion before with SSBD:
>
> seccomp_set_mode_filter()
> seccomp_attach_filter()
> seccomp_sync_threads()
> for_each_thread(t)
> if (t == current)
> continue;
> seccomp_assign_mode(t)
> arch_seccomp_spec_mitigate(t);
>
> seccomp_assign_mode(current...)
> arch_seccomp_spec_mitigate();
>
> > But if task_update_spec_tif gets used in the future where tsk is running
> > on a remote CPU, this could lead to the MSR getting out of sync with the
> > running task's TIF flag. This will break either performance or security.
>
> We also had that discussion with SSBD and decided that we won't chase
> threads and send IPIs around. Yes, it's not perfect, but not the end of the
> world either. For PRCTL it's a non issue.
Fair enough and agreed - but please add a comment for all this, as it's a
non-trivial and rare call context and a non-trivial implementation
trade-off as a result.
Thanks,
Ingo
