Re: [patch 20/24] x86/speculation: Split out TIF update

[Jiri Kosina]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jiri Kosina wrote:

> > >  static int ssb_prctl_set(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long ctrl)
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > index 3f5e351bdd37..6c4fcef52b19 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process.c
> > > @@ -474,6 +474,21 @@ void __switch_to_xtra(struct task_struct *prev_p, struct task_struct *next_p)
> > >  
> > >  	tifn = READ_ONCE(task_thread_info(next_p)->flags);
> > >  	tifp = READ_ONCE(task_thread_info(prev_p)->flags);
> > > +
> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * SECCOMP tasks might have had their spec_ctrl flags updated during
> > > +	 * runtime from a different CPU.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * When switching to such a task, populate thread flags with the ones
> > > +	 * that have been temporarily saved in spec_flags by task_update_spec_tif()
> > > +	 * in order to make sure MSR value is always kept up to date.
> > > +	 *
> > > +	 * SECCOMP tasks never disable the mitigation for other threads, only enable.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SECCOMP) &&
> > > +			test_and_clear_tsk_thread_flag(next_p, TIF_SPEC_UPDATE))
> > > +		tifp |= READ_ONCE(task_thread_info(next_p)->spec_flags);
> > 
> > And how does that get folded into task_thread_info(next_p)->flags for the
> > next context switch? 
> 
> Does it really have to? 

I guess I misunderstood the question, and the answer is that it actually 
should be 'tifn' there, as I wrote in a followup mail.

But in any case, I agree we need to handle both directions for full 
consistency, so your patch is a correct one.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs