From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: replace RDRAND forced-reseed with simple sanity check
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2015 18:03:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150802160332.GB28860@amd> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <001e354e9435443b1720838a111620c4eec12a61.1438356386.git.len.brown@intel.com>
On Fri 2015-07-31 11:27:39, Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>
> x86_init_rdrand() was added with 2 goals:
>
> 1. Sanity check that the built-in-self-test circuit on the Digital
> Random Number Generator (DRNG) is not complaining. As RDRAND
> HW self-checks on every invocation, this goal is achieved
> by simply invoking RDRAND and checking its return code.
>
> 2. Force a full re-seed of the random number generator.
> This was done out of paranoia to benefit the most un-sophisticated
> DRNG implementation conceivable in the architecture,
> an implementation that does not exist, and unlikely ever will.
> This worst-case full-re-seed is achieved by invoking
> a 64-bit RDRAND 8192 times.
>
> Unfortunately, this worst-case re-seed costs O(1,000us).
> Magnifying this cost, it is done from identify_cpu(), which is the
> synchronous critical path to bring a processor on-line -- repeated
> for every logical processor in the system at boot and resume from S3.
>
> As it is very expensive, and of highly dubious value,
> we delete the worst-case re-seed from the kernel.
>
> We keep the 1st goal -- sanity check the hardware,
> and mark it absent if it complains.
If we trust built-in-self-test... why do we need to do this at all? We
should check the return value at every call, anyway...
Pavel
> This change reduces the cost of x86_init_rdrand() by a factor of 1,000x,
> to O(1us) from O(1,000us).
>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdrand.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdrand.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdrand.c
> index 136ac74..b86817e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdrand.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdrand.c
> @@ -33,28 +33,26 @@ static int __init x86_rdrand_setup(char *s)
> __setup("nordrand", x86_rdrand_setup);
>
> /*
> - * Force a reseed cycle; we are architecturally guaranteed a reseed
> - * after no more than 512 128-bit chunks of random data. This also
> - * acts as a test of the CPU capability.
> + * RDRAND has Built-In-Self-Test (BIST) that runs on every invocation.
> + * Run the instruction a few times as a sanity check.
> + * If it fails, it is simple to disable RDRAND here.
> */
> -#define RESEED_LOOP ((512*128)/sizeof(unsigned long))
> +#define SANITY_CHECK_LOOPS 8
>
> void x86_init_rdrand(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_RANDOM
> unsigned long tmp;
> - int i, count, ok;
> + int i;
>
> if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_RDRAND))
> - return; /* Nothing to do */
> + return;
>
> - for (count = i = 0; i < RESEED_LOOP; i++) {
> - ok = rdrand_long(&tmp);
> - if (ok)
> - count++;
> + for (i = 0; i < SANITY_CHECK_LOOPS; i++) {
> + if (!rdrand_long(&tmp)) {
> + clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_RDRAND);
> + return;
> + }
> }
> -
> - if (count != RESEED_LOOP)
> - clear_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_RDRAND);
> #endif
> }
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-08-02 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-31 15:27 [PATCH 1/1] x86: replace RDRAND forced-reseed with simple sanity check Len Brown
2015-08-02 16:03 ` Pavel Machek [this message]
2015-08-03 17:20 ` Len Brown
2015-08-02 17:42 ` Jeff Epler
2015-08-02 18:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-08-05 10:07 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20150802160332.GB28860@amd \
--to=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox