From: Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
To: bp@alien8.de, tglx@kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org,
viresh.kumar@linaro.org, yosry@kernel.org,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, ludloff@gmail.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] Fix racy and incorrect updates to MSR_K7_HWCR
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 15:45:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260618224527.1506419-1-jmattson@google.com> (raw)
I was backporting commit 65f55a301766 ("x86/CPU/AMD: Add CPUID faulting
support") to a local branch based on Linux v6.12, when our internal Sashiko
asked:
> Can this corrupt MSR_K7_HWCR? disable_cpuid()->set_cpuid_faulting() is
> called with preemption disabled, but interrupts are still enabled. Since
> msr_set_bit() performs a read-modify-write without disabling interrupts,
> if an IPI arrives between the read and write and modifies MSR_K7_HWCR
> (e.g. acpi-cpufreq toggling Core Performance Boost), the IPI's update
> will be lost.
To confirm that this wasn't just AI slop, I set up an empirical test on a
Turin system. First, I replaced the amd-pstate cpufreq driver with
acpi-cpufreq. Then I ran a test program, where one thread repeatedly reads
CPU0's HWCR, toggles /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/boost, reads CPU0's
HWCR again, and then verifies that the CPB_DIS bit has flipped. A second
thread, pinned to CPU0, repeatedly calls arch_prctl(ARCH_SET_CPUID, <val>),
where <val> alternates between 0 and 1. With the second thread running, the
first thread soon fails the verification step, indicating that the CPB_DIS
bit change is, in fact, lost.
Andrew Cooper raised a valid concern regarding the core-scoped nature of
MSR_K7_HWCR on some AMD CPUs. When the MSR is shared between SMT siblings,
a cross-CPU race is possible if SMT threads concurrently modify the
MSR. Centralizing all runtime updates through the amd_update_hwcr() helper
ensures that if explicit serialization is desired, it can be implemented
transparently in a single place. Note that on recent AMD CPUs, the MSR is
thread-scoped.
Google's internal Sashiko highlighted a separate, pre-existing
architectural issue in acpi-cpufreq that Borislav and I briefly touched on:
during shared policy teardown (e.g., driver unload),
acpi_cpufreq_cpu_exit() is only executed for the final CPU in the
policy. As a result, cpufreq_boost_down_prep() only restores the
boost-disable MSR bit on that single CPU, leaving all other sibling CPUs
that shared the policy with the disable bit still set. On Intel platforms,
where the turbo-disable MSR bit acts as a logical OR across the package,
this leaves the entire package permanently boost-disabled after the driver
is unloaded. This issue out of scope for this series, as it requires a
broader redesign of cpufreq policy teardown coordination, and should be
addressed separately.
v2 -> v3:
- Add WARN_ON_ONCE(in_nmi()) to the helper to ensure NMI safety [Yosry].
- Redesign amd_update_hwcr() to be a simple bit-based wrapper [Yosry].
- Fix cpufreq_boost_down_prep() to target the correct CPU via IPI, resolving
the wrong-CPU update and Intel preemption/migration races [Sashiko].
- Drop the Fixes tag from patch 4, since the race is now fixed in patch 3.
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260612215729.1532175-1-jmattson@google.com/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260609211611.466231-1-jmattson@google.com/
Jim Mattson (4):
x86/CPU/AMD: Avoid racy updates to MSR_K7_HWCR in set_cpuid_faulting()
x86/mce/inject: Avoid racy updates to MSR_K7_HWCR during MCE injection
cpufreq: ACPI: Use IPI to update boost MSR in
cpufreq_boost_down_prep()
cpufreq: ACPI: Use amd_update_hwcr() for MSR_K7_HWCR updates
arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h | 2 ++
arch/x86/include/asm/processor.h | 2 ++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/inject.c | 46 ++++++++++----------------------
arch/x86/kernel/process.c | 5 +---
drivers/cpufreq/acpi-cpufreq.c | 11 ++++----
6 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
base-commit: 83f1454877cc292b88baf13c829c16ce6937d120
next reply other threads:[~2026-06-18 22:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-18 22:45 Jim Mattson [this message]
2026-06-18 22:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] x86/CPU/AMD: Avoid racy updates to MSR_K7_HWCR in set_cpuid_faulting() Jim Mattson
2026-06-18 22:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/mce/inject: Avoid racy updates to MSR_K7_HWCR during MCE injection Jim Mattson
2026-06-18 22:45 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] cpufreq: ACPI: Use IPI to update boost MSR in cpufreq_boost_down_prep() Jim Mattson
2026-06-18 22:45 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] cpufreq: ACPI: Use amd_update_hwcr() for MSR_K7_HWCR updates Jim Mattson
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=20260618224527.1506419-1-jmattson@google.com \
--to=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ludloff@gmail.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@kernel.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yosry@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox