linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V3] perf & kvm: 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]

Date:	Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:05:33 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Sheng Yang <sheng@...ux.intel.com>,
	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>, zhiteng.huang@...el.com,
	tim.c.chen@...el.com, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] perf & kvm: Enhance perf to collect KVM guest os statistics
 from host side

On 04/15/2030 04:04 AM, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>
>> An even more accurate way to determine this is to check whether the
>> interrupt frame points back at the 'int $2' instruction.  However we
>> plan to switch to a self-IPI method to inject the NMI, and I'm not sure
>> wether APIC NMIs are accepted on an instruction boundary or whether
>> there's some latency involved.
>>      
> Yes. But the frame pointer checking seems a little complicated.
>    

An even bigger disadvantage is that it won't work with Sheng's patch, 
self-NMIs are not synchronous.

>>>    	trace_kvm_entry(vcpu->vcpu_id);
>>> +
>>> +	percpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu);
>>>    	kvm_x86_ops->run(vcpu);
>>> +	percpu_write(current_vcpu, NULL);
>>>
>>>        
>> If you move this around the 'int $2' instructions you will close the
>> race, as a stray NMI won't catch us updating the rip cache.  But that
>> depends on whether self-IPI is accepted on the next instruction or not.
>>      
> Right. The kernel part has dependency on the self-IPI implementation.
> I will move above percpu_write(current_vcpu, vcpu) (or a new wrapper function)
> just around 'int $2'.
>
>    

Or create a new function to inject the interrupt in x86.c.  That will 
reduce duplication between svm.c and vmx.c.

> Sheng would find a solution on the self-IPI delivery. Let's separate my patch
> and self-IPI as 2 issues as we don't know when the self-IPI delivery would be
> resolved.
>    

Sure.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.

--
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/