linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/hyper-v: allocate and use Virtual Processor Assist Pages

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:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:57:03 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mmorsy@...hat.com>,
        Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>, Bandan Das <bsd@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] x86/hyper-v: allocate and use Virtual Processor
 Assist Pages

On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:45:03PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > The only user of these pages is currently KVM. Can we still have vCPUs
> > > running on the outgoing CPU at this point? If case we can we're in
> > > trouble and we need to somehow kick them out first.
> > 
> > The first thing we do in unplug is to mark the CPU inactive, but I'm not
> > sure whether that prevents something which was on the CPU before and
> > perhaps preempted or is affine to that CPU to be scheduled in
> > again. Peter????
> 
> I think we can still have tasks running at this point.
> 
> AP_ACTIVE (sched_cpu_deactivate) simply takes the CPU out of the active
> mask, which guarantees no new tasks will land on the CPU.
> 
> We'll then proceed all the way to TEARDOWN_CPU as 'normal', at which
> point we'll call stop_machine() which does the old DYING callbacks.
> 
> It sounds like we want this done here, although possibly we can't do
> vfree() from that context, in which case it needs to store the pointer
> and do that from a BP callback (what used to be the OFFLINE callbacks or
> something).

So the wrmsr() wants to be in the dying range. The vfree() is questionable
anyway because the re-onlining of that CPU will just allocate it again. So
it could very well stay around.

Thanks,

	tglx