linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation

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]

Message-ID: <4ACCF565.30804@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:09:09 +0200
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
	Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
	Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	kurt.hackel@...cle.com, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
	Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation

On 10/07/2009 09:29 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>>    I'm a bit worried about the kernel playing with the hypervisor's
>> version field.
>>      
> For Xen I explicitly made it not a problem by adding the notion of a
> secondary pvclock_vcpu_time_info structure which is updated by copying,
> aside from the version number which is updated as-is.
>    

When do you copy?

I'd rather have a single copy for guest and host.

> As far as I can tell it isn't a problem for KVM either.  The guest
> version number is atomic with respect to preemption by the hypervisor so
> there's no scope for racing.  (The ABI already guarantees that the
> pvclock structures are never updated cross-cpu.)
>
> It ultimately doesn't matter what the version number is so long as it
> changes when the parameters are updated, and version numbers can't be
> reused within a window where things get confused.
>    

If the hypervisor does a pvclock->version = somethingelse->version++ 
then the guest may get confused.  But I understand you have a 
guest-private ->version?

>> It's better to introduce yet a new version for the kernel, and check
>> both.
>>      
> Two version numbers are awkward to read atomically at least on 32-bit.
> And I don't think its necessary.
>    

No need to read them atomically.

cpu1 = vgetcpu()
hver1 = pvclock[cpu1].hver
kver1 = pvclock[cpu1].kver
tsc = rdtsc
/* multipication magic with pvclock[cpu1]*/
cpu2 = vgetcpu()
hver2 = pvclock[cpu2].hver
kver2 = pvclock[cpu2].kver
valid = cpu1 == cpu2 && hver1 == hver2 && kver1 == kver2

>> It's sufficient to increment a version counter on thread migration, no
>> need to do it on context switch.
>>
>>      
> That's true; switch_out is a pessimistic approximation of that.  But is
> there a convenient hook to test for migration?
>    

I'd guess not but it's probably easy to add one in the migration thread.

-- 
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/