On 07/14/2010 10:45 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
quoted text
> On 07/14/2010 10:40 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>> On 07/14/2010 01:16 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>> On 07/14/2010 08:57 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>>> Anything else?
>>> 1. set up a mapping
>>> 2. invlpg or set cr3
>>> 3. use the mapping
>>>
>>> Moving the invlpg will break your code.
>> invlpg uses memory clobbers.  All the crX ops seem to use a
>> __force_order variable to sequence them - but it looks like it's done
>> precisely backwards and it's barking mad to do allow write_crX to be
>> reordered with respect to memory ops.
>>
>> Hm, looks like glommer added it surreptitiously while unifying
>> system_32.h and system_64.h (system_32.h relied on asm volatile not
>> being reordered; system_64.h used memory clobbers).
>>      J
>
> clts() has no memory clobber; it is used to serialize execution of 
> code within kernel_fpu_begin() / kernel_fpu_end() blocks.
>
> If the code within is reordered before the clts(), we've corrupted 
> guest FPU state.
>
> That's the kind of bug I think Linus is talking about.  We've been 
> expecting volatile to work that way for over a decade, by my 
> recollection, and if it doesn't, there is going to be a lot of broken 
> code.
>
> Shouldn't we at least get a compiler switch to force the volatile 
> behavior?  I'd suggest it default to conservative.

Hmm, well, despite that not being quite correct (if guest has used FPU, 
we save it, which has a memory clobber), it seems to be the case that a 
reordering of the clts() among the other volatile asm statements would 
be a very bad thing - you'd get kernel FPU exceptions.

And among asm volatiles, clts() is fairly unique in not having any 
clobbers or dependencies at all, so it could happen.

Zach
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/