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:	Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:40:11 +0200
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Radim <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/cputime: add steal clock warps handling during cpu
 hotplug



On 02/06/2016 15:59, Rik van Riel wrote:
> If a guest is saved to disk and later restored (eg. after
> a host reboot), or live migrated to another host, I would
> expect to get totally disjoint steal time statistics from
> the "new run" of the guest (which is the same run of the
> guest OS).

Why?  The preexisting guest steal time is always added to by
KVM, so the time won't restart from zero.

Continuing the previous count on CPU hot-unplug followed by hot-plug
is less obvious, but I think it's overall the right thing to do.

In fact, I was going to test a patch this week as simple as this:

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index eea2a6f72b31..1ef5e48b3a36 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@ -301,8 +301,6 @@ static void kvm_register_steal_time(void)
 	if (!has_steal_clock)
 		return;
 
-	memset(st, 0, sizeof(*st));
-
 	wrmsrl(MSR_KVM_STEAL_TIME, (slow_virt_to_phys(st) | KVM_MSR_ENABLED));
 	pr_info("kvm-stealtime: cpu %d, msr %llx\n",
 		cpu, (unsigned long long) slow_virt_to_phys(st));


Thanks,

Paolo

> In fact, this code may also need to deal with the case
> where steal time suddenly increases by a ludicrous amount,
> and ignore those events, too.
> 
> A safe threshold might be to only apply steal times that
> are positive and smaller than one second (as long as nohz_full
> has the one second timer tick left), ignoring intervals that
> are negative or longer than a second, and using those to sync
> up the guest with the host.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ