Re: [PATCH v5 11/15] x86/mtrr: construct a memory map with cache modes

[Borislav Petkov]

On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 08:36:48AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> +static void rm_map_entry_at(int idx)
> +{
> +	cache_map_n--;

Let's not call memmove() when cache_map_n == idx.

Below too.

Especially since cache_map + idx + 1 is not valid and I wouldn't want it
getting prefetched from %rsi in the hw when there's no reason for it and
also the RET even from a function which doesn't do anything, costs.

> +	memmove(cache_map + idx, cache_map + idx + 1,
> +		sizeof(*cache_map) * (cache_map_n - idx));
> +}

Ok, first weird issue I encountered while playing with my carved out
program to exercise this cache_map handling thing. I can share it if you
want it - it is ugly but it works.

So while rebuilding the map, I have these current regions in the map, at
one point in time:

Current map:
0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00000d4b0000c000, type: 0x1
4: start: 0x00000d4b0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
5: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2

note entry #3.

Now the next one it inserts is:

add_map_entry_at: start: 0x3bf0000c000, end: 0xd4b0000c000, type: 0x0, idx: 3
 merge_prev 0: prev->fixed: 0, prev->end: 0x3bf0000c000, prev->type: 0x2
 merge_next: 1, next->fixed: 0, next->start: 0xd4b0000c000, next->type: 0x0
add_map_entry_at: ret: 1

Note how it is the same as entry number #3 - just a different type.

What it ends up doing is, it simply overwrites the previous one and
merges it with the next:

Current map:
0: start: 0x0000000000000000, end: 0x0000000000100000, type: 0x0
1: start: 0x0000000100000000, end: 0x0000000820000000, type: 0x6
2: start: 0x000002f10000c000, end: 0x000003bf0000c000, type: 0x2
3: start: 0x000003bf0000c000, end: 0x00019fc000001000, type: 0x0
4: start: 0x00019fc000001000, end: 0x0001df2d00001000, type: 0x2

Now I think right about now we should've screamed loudly.

I know I know, this should never happen, right? And firmware programming
those MTRRs doesn't make mistakes...

However, we should be loud here and scream when a MTRR range disappears
like that.

Right?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette