linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201003171728.43739.sheng@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:28:43 +0800
From:	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	oerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
	Jes Sorensen <Jes.Sorensen@...hat.com>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>,
	"Huang, Zhiteng" <zhiteng.huang@...el.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from host side

On Wednesday 17 March 2010 10:34:33 Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:32 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 03/16/2010 09:48 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > Right, but there is a scope between kvm_guest_enter and really running
> > > in guest os, where a perf event might overflow. Anyway, the scope is
> > > very narrow, I will change it to use flag PF_VCPU.
> >
> > There is also a window between setting the flag and calling 'int $2'
> > where an NMI might happen and be accounted incorrectly.
> >
> > Perhaps separate the 'int $2' into a direct call into perf and another
> > call for the rest of NMI handling.  I don't see how it would work on svm
> > though - AFAICT the NMI is held whereas vmx swallows it.
> >
> >  I guess NMIs
> > will be disabled until the next IRET so it isn't racy, just tricky.
> 
> I'm not sure if vmexit does break NMI context or not. Hardware NMI context
> isn't reentrant till a IRET. YangSheng would like to double check it.

After more check, I think VMX won't remained NMI block state for host. That's 
means, if NMI happened and processor is in VMX non-root mode, it would only 
result in VMExit, with a reason indicate that it's due to NMI happened, but no 
more state change in the host.

So in that meaning, there _is_ a window between VMExit and KVM handle the NMI. 
Moreover, I think we _can't_ stop the re-entrance of NMI handling code because 
"int $2" don't have effect to block following NMI.

And if the NMI sequence is not important(I think so), then we need to generate 
a real NMI in current vmexit-after code. Seems let APIC send a NMI IPI to 
itself is a good idea.

I am debugging a patch based on apic->send_IPI_self(NMI_VECTOR) to replace 
"int $2". Something unexpected is happening...

-- 
regards
Yang, Sheng
--
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/