linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] x86,kvm: Add a kernel parameter to disable PV spinlock

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, 5 Sep 2017 10:28:01 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] x86,kvm: Add a kernel parameter to disable PV
 spinlock

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:14:21AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 05/09/17 10:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >>> So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
> >>> test-and-set spinlock if you don't do paravirt but are running a HV.
> >>
> >> In the Xen case we just use the bare metal settings when xen_nopvspin
> >> has been specified. So paravirt, but without modifying any pv_lock_ops
> >> functions.
> > 
> > See arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:virt_spin_lock(). Unless you clear
> > X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR you get a test-and-set spinlock.
> > 
> > And as the comment there says, this is a fallback for !paravirt enabled
> > hypervisors to avoid the worst of the lock holder preemption crud.
> > 
> > But this very much does not deal with the 1:1 case nicely.
> > 
> 
> Aah, now I've got it.
> 
> So maybe we should add virt_spin_lock() to pv_lock_ops? This way e.g.
> xen_nopvspin could tweak just the virt_spin_lock() case by letting it
> return false all the time?

Hmm, that might work. Could we somehow nop that call when
!X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR?, that saves native from having to do the call
and would be a win for everyone.