linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/2] x86: kvmclock: abolish PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 17:54:29 +0200
From:	Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] x86: kvmclock: abolish PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO

Newer KVM won't be exposing PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO anymore.
The purpose of that flags was to start counting system time from 0 when
the KVM clock has been initialized.
We can achieve the same by selecting one read as the initial point.

A simple subtraction will work unless the KVM clock count overflows
earlier (has smaller width) than scheduler's cycle count.  We should be
safe till x86_128.

Because PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO was enabled only on new hypervisors,
setting sched clock as stable based on PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT might
regress on older ones.

I presume we don't need to change kvm_clock_read instead of introducing
kvm_sched_clock_read.  A problem could arise in case sched_clock is
expected to return the same value as get_cycles, but we should have
merged those clocks in that case.

Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
index 2c7aafa70702..ef5b3d2cecce 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
@@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
 static int kvmclock = 1;
 static int msr_kvm_system_time = MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME;
 static int msr_kvm_wall_clock = MSR_KVM_WALL_CLOCK;
+static cycle_t kvm_sched_clock_offset;
 
 static int parse_no_kvmclock(char *arg)
 {
@@ -92,6 +93,29 @@ static cycle_t kvm_clock_get_cycles(struct clocksource *cs)
 	return kvm_clock_read();
 }
 
+static cycle_t kvm_sched_clock_read(void)
+{
+	return kvm_clock_read() - kvm_sched_clock_offset;
+}
+
+static inline void kvm_sched_clock_init(bool stable)
+{
+	if (!stable) {
+		pv_time_ops.sched_clock = kvm_clock_read;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	kvm_sched_clock_offset = kvm_clock_read();
+	pv_time_ops.sched_clock = kvm_sched_clock_read;
+	set_sched_clock_stable();
+
+	printk("kvm-clock: using sched offset of %llu cycles\n",
+			kvm_sched_clock_offset);
+
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(kvm_sched_clock_offset) >
+	         sizeof(((struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info *)NULL)->system_time));
+}
+
 /*
  * If we don't do that, there is the possibility that the guest
  * will calibrate under heavy load - thus, getting a lower lpj -
@@ -248,7 +272,17 @@ void __init kvmclock_init(void)
 		memblock_free(mem, size);
 		return;
 	}
-	pv_time_ops.sched_clock = kvm_clock_read;
+
+	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE_STABLE_BIT))
+		pvclock_set_flags(PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT);
+
+	cpu = get_cpu();
+	vcpu_time = &hv_clock[cpu].pvti;
+	flags = pvclock_read_flags(vcpu_time);
+
+	kvm_sched_clock_init(flags & PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT);
+	put_cpu();
+
 	x86_platform.calibrate_tsc = kvm_get_tsc_khz;
 	x86_platform.get_wallclock = kvm_get_wallclock;
 	x86_platform.set_wallclock = kvm_set_wallclock;
@@ -265,16 +299,6 @@ void __init kvmclock_init(void)
 	kvm_get_preset_lpj();
 	clocksource_register_hz(&kvm_clock, NSEC_PER_SEC);
 	pv_info.name = "KVM";
-
-	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE_STABLE_BIT))
-		pvclock_set_flags(~0);
-
-	cpu = get_cpu();
-	vcpu_time = &hv_clock[cpu].pvti;
-	flags = pvclock_read_flags(vcpu_time);
-	if (flags & PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO)
-		set_sched_clock_stable();
-	put_cpu();
 }
 
 int __init kvm_setup_vsyscall_timeinfo(void)
-- 
2.5.2

--
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/