linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49EC1001.50905@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:02:41 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow preemption during lazy mmu updates

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>> What are the slight differences in requirements?
>>
>> KVM wants to run in non-preemptible, interrupts-enabled context.
>
> There are two hooks: arch_start_context_switch() in 
> kernel/sched:context_switch(), and arch_end_context_switch() in 
> arch/x86/kernel/process_(32|64).c.  They bound the heart of the 
> context switch in which various bits of core state is changes, like 
> the cr3 reload, fpu TS flag, iopl, tls slots, etc.  All things which 
> require a hypercall in a paravirtualized environment, and so can be 
> batched together into a multicall (or whatever) to minimize the number 
> of context-switch time hypercalls.  The placement of 
> end_context_switch is particularly sensitive because it needs to be in 
> the right place relative to fpu context reload and segment register 
> reloading.
>
> Preemption is definitely disabled, and interrupts as well, I think.  
> So perhaps these won't work for you.
>
> However, looking at the fire_sched_out_preempt_notifiers() is almost 
> in the same position as arch_start_context_switch(), so I think they 
> could be unified one way or the other.  The sched_in notifier happens 
> way too late though.  Does KVM just use both in and out, or just one?

Both.  sched_out loads the host MSR_STAR and friends, sched_in loads the 
guest values.


-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
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/