Re: [PATCH RFC V2 04/17] x86/pks: Preserve the PKRS MSR on context switch

[Ira Weiny]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:15:54AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 03:34:07PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:59:54AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:43AM -0700, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Write the PKey Register Supervisor.  This must be run with preemption
> > > > + * disabled as it does not guarantee the atomicity of updating the pkrs_cache
> > > > + * and MSR on its own.
> > > > + */
> > > > +void write_pkrs(u32 pkrs_val)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	this_cpu_write(pkrs_cache, pkrs_val);
> > > > +	wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PKRS, pkrs_val);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Should we write that like:
> > > 
> > > void write_pkrs(u32 pkr)
> > > {
> > > 	u32 *pkrs = get_cpu_ptr(pkrs_cache);
> > > 	if (*pkrs != pkr) {
> > > 		*pkrs = pkr;
> > > 		wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_PKRS, pkr);
> > > 	}
> > > 	put_cpu_ptrpkrs_cache);
> > > }
> > > 
> > > given that we fundamentally need to serialize againt schedule() here.
> > 
> > Yes.  That seems better.
> > 
> > That also means pks_sched_in() can be simplified to just
> > 
> > static inline void pks_sched_in(void)
> > {
> > 	write_pkrs(current->thread.saved_pkrs);
> > }
> > 
> > Because of the built WRMSR avoidance.
> > 
> > However, pkrs_cache is static so I think I need to use {get,put}_cpu_var() here
> > don't I?
> 
> Or get_cpu_ptr(&pkrs_cache), sorry for the typo :-)

Ah I see...  sorry, yes that will work.

Done,
Ira