linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 01 Feb 2011 17:58:30 -0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	aliguori@...ibm.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 19:09 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 05:48 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > >  >  @@ -2106,6 +2120,25 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> > >  >    			kvm_migrate_timers(vcpu);
> > >  >    		vcpu->cpu = cpu;
> > >  >    	}
> > >  >  +
> > >  >  +	if (vcpu->arch.this_time_out) {
> > >  >  +		u64 to = (get_kernel_ns() - vcpu->arch.this_time_out);
> > >  >  +		/*
> > >  >  +		 * using nanoseconds introduces noise, which accumulates easily
> > >  >  +		 * leading to big steal time values. We want, however, to keep the
> > >  >  +		 * interface nanosecond-based for future-proofness.
> > >  >  +		 */
> > >  >  +		to /= NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > >  >  +		to *= NSEC_PER_USEC;
> > >
> > >  Seems there is a real problem and that this is just papering it over.
> > >  I'd like to understand the root cause.
> > Okay, my self-explanation seemed reasonable to me, but since both you
> > and Peter dislike it, I think it is important enough to get a more
> > thorough investigation before a second round.
> 
> Yes please.
> 
> > But in this case,
> > I keep that using nanoseconds may then not be the best approach here. We
> > also have to keep in mind that the host and guest clocks may be running
> > at different resolutions.
> 
> We need to choose a resolution for the clock (or negotiate one), an 
> nanoseconds seems as good as any from a range and precision 
> considerations, and is convenient for the host and Linux guests.  So why 
> not pick it?
> 
> > >  >  +		vcpu->arch.sversion += 2;
> > >
> > >  Doesn't survive live migration.  You need to use the version from the
> > >  guest area.
> > Why not? Who said versions need to always increase? If current version
> > is 102324, and we live migrate and it becomes 0, what is the problem?
> 
> Guest reads version (result: 2)
> Guest starts reading data
> Live migration; vcpu->arch.sversion is zeroed
> Steal time update; vcpu->arch.sversion += 2; write to guest
> Guest continues reading data
> Guest reads version (result: 2)
> 
> So the guest is unaware that an update has occurred while it was reading 
> the data.
Ok, fair.

By the way, kvmclock have the same problem, then
> 


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