public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>,
	Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
	 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
	 Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>,
	 Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>,
	Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>, Xin Li <xin3.li@intel.com>,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Add feature dependency checks
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 16:27:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZsfJUT0AWFhoONWf@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240822202226.862398-1-sohil.mehta@intel.com>

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> Currently, the cpuid-deps[] table is only exercised when a particular
> feature gets explicitly disabled and clear_cpu_cap() is called. However,
> some of these listed dependencies might already be missing during boot.
> Unexpected failures can occur when the kernel tries to use such a
> feature.
> 
> Therefore, add boot time checks for missing feature dependencies and
> disable any feature whose dependencies are not met.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@intel.com>
> ---
> Arguably, this situation should only happen on broken hardware and it may not
> make sense to add such a check to the kernel. OTOH, this can be viewed as a
> safety mechanism to make failures more graceful on such configurations in real
> or virtual environments.

And goofy Kconfigs.   But yeah, lack of any meaningful fallout is why my version
didn't go anywhere.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221203003745.1475584-2-seanjc@google.com

> I feel since we already have the cpuid-deps[] table and the incremental changes
> are small, this patch might be a useful addition.
> 
> Also, if this check seems worthwhile, would it be useful to combine and rewrite
> it with filter_cpuid_features() since it tries to do something similar?
> ---
> 
>  arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h |  1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c      |  4 ++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c  | 10 ++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index 0b9611da6c53..347ef04f65ef 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -148,6 +148,7 @@ extern const char * const x86_bug_flags[NBUGINTS*32];
>  
>  extern void setup_clear_cpu_cap(unsigned int bit);
>  extern void clear_cpu_cap(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, unsigned int bit);
> +extern void filter_feature_dependencies(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c);
>  
>  #define setup_force_cpu_cap(bit) do {			\
>  							\
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> index d4e539d4e158..6b725dbd8db7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/common.c
> @@ -1602,6 +1602,7 @@ static void __init early_identify_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  
>  		c->cpu_index = 0;
>  		filter_cpuid_features(c, false);
> +		filter_feature_dependencies(c);
>  
>  		if (this_cpu->c_bsp_init)
>  			this_cpu->c_bsp_init(c);
> @@ -1854,6 +1855,9 @@ static void identify_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>  	/* Filter out anything that depends on CPUID levels we don't have */
>  	filter_cpuid_features(c, true);
>  
> +	/* Filter out features that don't have their dependencies met */
> +	filter_feature_dependencies(c);
> +
>  	/* If the model name is still unset, do table lookup. */
>  	if (!c->x86_model_id[0]) {
>  		const char *p;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c
> index b7d9f530ae16..88b34a97278a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpuid-deps.c
> @@ -147,3 +147,13 @@ void setup_clear_cpu_cap(unsigned int feature)
>  {
>  	do_clear_cpu_cap(NULL, feature);
>  }
> +
> +void filter_feature_dependencies(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> +	const struct cpuid_dep *d;
> +
> +	for (d = cpuid_deps; d->feature; d++) {
> +		if (boot_cpu_has(d->feature) && !boot_cpu_has(d->depends))

I don't think checking boot_cpu_has() is correct, it's entirely possible for a CPU
to have divergent features from the boot CPU, e.g. if a feature is dependent on
BIOS enabling (or disabling) and BIOS messed up.

> +			do_clear_cpu_cap(c, d->feature);
> +	}
> +}
> -- 
> 2.34.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-08-22 23:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-08-22 20:22 [RFC PATCH] x86/cpufeature: Add feature dependency checks Sohil Mehta
2024-08-22 23:27 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2024-08-23 19:05   ` Sohil Mehta
2024-08-26 20:05     ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-26 21:47       ` Sohil Mehta

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=ZsfJUT0AWFhoONWf@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@google.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nik.borisov@suse.com \
    --cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sandipan.das@amd.com \
    --cc=sohil.mehta@intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=ubizjak@gmail.com \
    --cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=xin3.li@intel.com \
    /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