From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
w@1wt.eu, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] x86: Avoid CR3 load on compatibility mode with PTI
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 15:26:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180120142627.jttjdsenwsedvle6@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5D6CD440-B20F-4ABF-8B02-EE87205B661D@gmail.com>
* Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So we are trading a 5-15% slowdown (PTI) for another 5-15% slowdown, plus we
> > are losing the soft-SMEP feature on older CPUs that PTI enables, which is a
> > pretty powerful mitigation technique.
>
> This soft-SMEP can be kept by keeping PTI if SMEP is unsupported. Although we
> trade slowdowns, they are different ones, which allows the user to make his best
> decision.
Indeed, not allowing PTI to be disabled if SMEP is unavailable might be a
solution.
> > Yes, I suspect in some (maybe many) cases it would be a speedup, but I really
> > don't like the underlying assumptions and tradeoffs here. (Not that I like any
> > of this whole Meltdown debacle TBH.)
>
> To make sure that I understand correctly - the assumptions are that disabling
> PTI on compatibility mode would: (1) Benefit some workloads; (2) Be useful, even
> if we only consider CPUs with SMEP; and (3) Secure.
>
> Under these assumptions, the tradeoff is slightly greater code complexity for
> considerably better performance of 32-bit code; in some common cases this makes
> 32-bit code to perform significantly better than 64-bit code.
>
> Am I missing something? My main concern was initially security, but so far from
> your aggregated feedback I did not see something concrete which cannot
> relatively easily be addressed.
Yes, I suppose.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-20 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-14 20:13 [RFC] x86: Avoid CR3 load on compatibility mode with PTI Nadav Amit
2018-01-15 17:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-15 17:42 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-15 17:45 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-15 17:50 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-15 18:04 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-01-15 18:50 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-15 19:49 ` Dave Hansen
2018-01-15 19:52 ` Willy Tarreau
2018-01-15 20:09 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-16 0:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2018-01-16 3:49 ` Nadav Amit
2018-01-20 14:26 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2018-01-20 16:31 ` Willy Tarreau
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=20180120142627.jttjdsenwsedvle6@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=w@1wt.eu \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).