All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] x86 mpx support for 3.19
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:38 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <548A147E.1020507@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141211061935.GA5059@gmail.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1557 bytes --]

On 12/10/2014 10:19 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> @@ -1575,6 +1571,27 @@ config X86_SMAP
>>  
>>  	  If unsure, say Y.
>>  
>> +config X86_INTEL_MPX
>> +	prompt "Intel MPX (Memory Protection Extensions)" if EXPERT
> 
> I think the 'if EXPERT' needs to be dropped.

Fine with me.

>> +	def_bool y
>> +	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL
> 
> On the one hand, the 'def_bool y' might be acceptable, if we 
> think of MPX as X32 or SECCOMP: ABI extensions that are only 
> really useful if all distros enable it.

It's a _bit_ different than X32 or SECCOMP, though.  An x32 app is a
doorstop if the kernel's config option is off.  An MPX-instrumented app
ends up looking like a dumb app running a bunch of noops (for the MPX
instructions and prefixes) and being mean to the icache, but it's not a
doorstop.

That said, we *really* want distros enabling it.  (Putting my Intel hat
on firmly now...)  MPX already requires recompiling binaries, which is a
fairly large burden.  If an application writer goes to that trouble, we
really want to make sure that the kernel support is there.

It'd be a real shame to have an app compiled with MPX support (and all
those noops and their overhead), running on a CPU with silicon that
supports MPX, and a kernel that *can* support MPX... and then not use it.

>> +	  Enabling this option will make the kernel larger and
>> +	  slightly increase the size of some kernel data
>> +	  structures.
> 
> And will add a few branches to critical code paths, right?

Yep, new patch attached.

[-- Attachment #2: x86-mpx-real-config-option-v3.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1859 bytes --]


From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>

Give MPX a real config option.  The CPUs that support it
(referenced here):

	https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/402393

are not available publicly, so we need to make it somewhat
easy to disable.

Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
---

 b/arch/x86/Kconfig |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff -puN arch/x86/Kconfig~x86-mpx-real-config-option-v3 arch/x86/Kconfig
--- a/arch/x86/Kconfig~x86-mpx-real-config-option-v3	2014-12-11 07:37:05.147501580 -0800
+++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig	2014-12-11 07:38:55.864495123 -0800
@@ -248,10 +248,6 @@ config HAVE_INTEL_TXT
 	def_bool y
 	depends on INTEL_IOMMU && ACPI
 
-config X86_INTEL_MPX
-	def_bool y
-	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL
-
 config X86_32_SMP
 	def_bool y
 	depends on X86_32 && SMP
@@ -1575,6 +1571,30 @@ config X86_SMAP
 
 	  If unsure, say Y.
 
+config X86_INTEL_MPX
+	prompt "Intel MPX (Memory Protection Extensions)"
+	def_bool y
+	depends on CPU_SUP_INTEL
+	---help---
+	  MPX provides hardware features that can be used in
+	  conjunction with compiler-instrumented code to check
+	  memory references.  It is designed to detect buffer
+	  overflow or underflow bugs.
+
+	  This option enables running applications which are
+	  instrumented or otherwise use MPX.  It does not use MPX
+	  itself inside the kernel or to protect the kernel
+	  against bad memory references.
+
+	  Enabling this option will make the kernel larger:
+	  ~8k of kernel text and 36 bytes of data on a 64-bit
+	  defconfig.  It adds a long to the 'mm_struct' which
+	  will increase the kernel memory overhead of each
+	  process and adds some branches to paths used during
+	  exec() and munmap().
+
+	  If unsure, say Y.
+
 config EFI
 	bool "EFI runtime service support"
 	depends on ACPI
_

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-11 22:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-09 14:08 [GIT pull] x86 mpx support for 3.19 Thomas Gleixner
2014-12-10 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-10 19:41   ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-10 19:49     ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-10 20:39       ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-10 20:49         ` Linus Torvalds
2014-12-12 16:40           ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-12-11  6:19         ` Ingo Molnar
2014-12-11 22:02           ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2014-12-12  8:31             ` Ingo Molnar
2014-12-12 12:30             ` Pavel Machek
2014-12-12 15:47               ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-12 17:21                 ` Pavel Machek
2014-12-10 19:49   ` Dave Hansen
2014-12-11  2:14 ` Eric W. Biederman
2014-12-11  2:30   ` Dave Hansen

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=548A147E.1020507@linux.intel.com \
    --to=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.