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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <4BA1464C.2020507@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:14:52 -1000
From:	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
To:	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	"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>,
	"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 03/16/2010 11:28 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> 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...
>    

You can't use the APIC to send vectors 0x00-0x1f, or at least, aren't 
supposed to be able to.

Zach
--
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/