linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add a global synchronization point for pvclock

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: <4BCDC567.6090708@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 18:16:55 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
CC:	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add a global synchronization point for pvclock

On 04/20/2010 03:59 PM, Glauber Costa wrote:
>
>> Might be due to NMIs or SMIs interrupting the rdtsc(); ktime_get()
>> operation which establishes the timeline.  We could limit it by
>> having a loop doing rdtsc(); ktime_get(); rdtsc(); and checking for
>> some bound, but it isn't worthwhile (and will break nested
>> virtualization for sure).  Better to have the option to calibrate
>> kvmclock just once on machines with
>> X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TRULY_RELIABLE _TSC_HONESTLY.
>>      
> For the record, we can only even do that in those machines. If we try to update
> time structures only once in machines with the
> X86_FEATURE_TSC_SAYS_IT_IS_OKAY_BUT_IN_REALITY_IS_NOT_OKAY feature flag, guests
> won't even boot.
>
> We can detect that, and besides doing calculation only once, also export some
> bit indicating that to the guest. Humm... I'm thinking now, that because of
> migration, we should check this bit every time, because we might have changed host.
> So instead of using an expensive cpuid check, we should probably use some bit in
> the vcpu_time_info structure, and use a cpuid bit just to say it is enabled.
>    

Right, we need a bit in the structure itself that says you can trust the 
time not to go backwards, and a bit in cpuid that says you can trust the 
bit in the structure (unless we can be sure no implementations leak 
garbage into the padding field).

-- 
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/