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  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:	Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:47:37 -1000
From:	Zachary Amsden <>
To:	Sheng Yang <>
CC:, Avi Kivity <>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	Peter Zijlstra <>,,
	Marcelo Tosatti <>,
	oerg Roedel <>,
	Jes Sorensen <>,
	Gleb Natapov <>,
	"Huang, Zhiteng" <>,
	Joerg Roedel <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics from
 host side

On 03/17/2010 07:41 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> On Thursday 18 March 2010 13:22:28 Sheng Yang wrote:
>> On Thursday 18 March 2010 12:50:58 Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>> On 03/17/2010 03:19 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
>>>> On Thursday 18 March 2010 05:14:52 Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Um? Why?
>>>> Especially kernel is already using it to deliver NMI.
>>> That's the only defined case, and it is defined because the vector field
>>> is ignore for DM_NMI.  Vol 3A (exact section numbers may vary depending
>>> on your version).
>>> 8.5.1 / 8.6.1
>>> '100 (NMI) Delivers an NMI interrupt to the target processor or
>>> processors.  The vector information is ignored'
>>> 8.5.2  Valid Interrupt Vectors
>>> 'Local and I/O APICs support 240 of these vectors (in the range of 16 to
>>> 255) as valid interrupts.'
>>> 8.8.4 Interrupt Acceptance for Fixed Interrupts
>>> '...; vectors 0 through 15 are reserved by the APIC (see also: Section
>>> 8.5.2, "Valid Interrupt Vectors")'
>>> So I misremembered, apparently you can deliver interrupts 0x10-0x1f, but
>>> vectors 0x00-0x0f are not valid to send via APIC or I/O APIC.
>> As you pointed out, NMI is not "Fixed interrupt". If we want to send NMI,
>>   it would need a specific delivery mode rather than vector number.
>> And if you look at code, if we specific NMI_VECTOR, the delivery mode would
>>   be set to NMI.
>> So what's wrong here?
> OK, I think I understand your points now. You meant that these vectors can't
> be filled in vector field directly, right? But NMI is a exception due to
> DM_NMI. Is that your point? I think we agree on this.

Yes, I think we agree.  NMI is the only vector in 0x0-0xf which can be 
sent via self-IPI because the vector itself does not matter for NMI.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists