From: Daniel Sneddon <daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
x86@kernel.org, "Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@intel.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Gomez Iglesias,
Antonio" <antonio.gomez.iglesias@intel.com>,
Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Don't disable x2APIC if locked
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:56:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0a95ff9-4567-aa2f-fdef-20793ba48c6a@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r11nu52l.ffs@tglx>
On 8/10/22 15:06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10 2022 at 12:40, Daniel Sneddon wrote:
>> On 8/10/22 11:52, Dave Hansen wrote:
>>> On 8/10/22 11:30, Daniel Sneddon wrote:
>>>>> If it's going to be on one server CPU that's coming out in ten years,
>>>>> then we can hold off.
>>>> SPR will certainly be sooner than 10 years, and with distros running on LTS
>>>> kernels, it is probably worth backporting. Since this isn't a bug fix (not a sw
>>>> bug anyway), is this something I can just CC stable or is there a better way to
>>>> say "Yes, this is a new feature, BUT, you really want it anyway"?
>>>
>>> It it going to be *forced* on those SPR system? In other words, is it a
>>> little BIOS switch that users can flip? Is there any non-kernel
>>> workaround if a user hits this, or is the entire burden of this going to
>>> be foisted on the kernel?
>> It won't be forced, BUT, certain features won't be available if the APIC isn't
>> locked. According to the documentation SGX and TDX won't be available if you
>> don't lock the APIC. So, yes, you don't have to fix it in the kernel, but you
>> may lose access to features if you don't.
>>>
>>> The worst case scenario would be if a user has managed to compile a
>>> CONFIG_X86_X2APIC=n kernel and is happily running along until they get a
>>> microcode update, reboot and can't boot any more.
>> That _shouldn't_ happen as it is only on new hardware, so a ucode update
>> _shouldn't_ cause a crash.
>
> Only on new hardware? The lock mechanism has to be available on _all_
> affected systems which support SGX. See
>
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/resources/intel-sgx-software-and-tcb-recovery-guidance.html
I asked the architect and security team that came up with that new MSR if it was
going to be backported via ucode updates and I was told no.
"Only SPR and newer. See the IA32_XAPIC_DISABLE_STATUS documentation at
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/cpuid-enumeration-and-architectural-msrs.html."
So, it appears we have a war between which documentation do we believe!
I do have a few follow up questions I'm waiting on being answered to help
clarify all this.
Thanks,
Dan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-10 22:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-09 23:40 Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 18:01 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-10 18:30 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 18:52 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-10 19:40 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 19:59 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-10 20:06 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 20:29 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 21:57 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-10 22:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-08-10 22:56 ` Daniel Sneddon [this message]
2022-08-10 23:03 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 23:09 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-10 23:38 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-10 23:44 ` Dave Hansen
2022-08-11 0:01 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-11 0:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-08-11 0:59 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-11 10:08 ` Huang, Kai
2022-08-11 0:17 ` Thomas Gleixner
2022-08-11 0:40 ` Daniel Sneddon
2022-08-11 8:29 ` Huang, Kai
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=e0a95ff9-4567-aa2f-fdef-20793ba48c6a@linux.intel.com \
--to=daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=antonio.gomez.iglesias@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®