| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100616003913.GA16533@amt.cnet>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:39:13 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
Cc: avi@...hat.com, glommer@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] Fix a possible backwards warp of kvmclock
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 02:21:17PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 01:47 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:34:13PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >>Kernel time, which advances in discrete steps may progress much slower
> >>than TSC. As a result, when kvmclock is adjusted to a new base, the
> >>apparent time to the guest, which runs at a much higher, nsec scaled
> >>rate based on the current TSC, may have already been observed to have
> >>a larger value (kernel_ns + scaled tsc) than the value to which we are
> >>setting it (kernel_ns + 0).
> >>
> >>We must instead compute the clock as potentially observed by the guest
> >>for kernel_ns to make sure it does not go backwards.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden<zamsden@...hat.com>
> >>---
> >> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++
> >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> >> 2 files changed, 71 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * The protection we require is simple: we must not be preempted from
> >>+ * the CPU between our read of the TSC khz and our read of the TSC.
> >>+ * Interrupt protection is not strictly required, but it does result in
> >>+ * greater accuracy for the TSC / kernel_ns measurement.
> >>+ */
> >>+ local_irq_save(flags);
> >>+ this_tsc_khz = __get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
> >>+ kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC,&tsc_timestamp);
> >>+ ktime_get_ts(&ts);
> >>+ monotonic_to_bootbased(&ts);
> >>+ kernel_ns = timespec_to_ns(&ts);
> >>+ local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>+
> >> if (unlikely(this_tsc_khz == 0)) {
> >> kvm_request_guest_time_update(v);
> >> return 1;
> >> }
> >>
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * Time as measured by the TSC may go backwards when resetting the base
> >>+ * tsc_timestamp. The reason for this is that the TSC resolution is
> >>+ * higher than the resolution of the other clock scales. Thus, many
> >>+ * possible measurments of the TSC correspond to one measurement of any
> >>+ * other clock, and so a spread of values is possible. This is not a
> >>+ * problem for the computation of the nanosecond clock; with TSC rates
> >>+ * around 1GHZ, there can only be a few cycles which correspond to one
> >>+ * nanosecond value, and any path through this code will inevitably
> >>+ * take longer than that. However, with the kernel_ns value itself,
> >>+ * the precision may be much lower, down to HZ granularity. If the
> >>+ * first sampling of TSC against kernel_ns ends in the low part of the
> >>+ * range, and the second in the high end of the range, we can get:
> >>+ *
> >>+ * (TSC - offset_low) * S + kns_old> (TSC - offset_high) * S + kns_new
> >>+ *
> >>+ * As the sampling errors potentially range in the thousands of cycles,
> >>+ * it is possible such a time value has already been observed by the
> >>+ * guest. To protect against this, we must compute the system time as
> >>+ * observed by the guest and ensure the new system time is greater.
> >>+ */
> >>+ max_kernel_ns = 0;
> >>+ if (vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp) {
> >>+ max_kernel_ns = vcpu->last_guest_tsc -
> >>+ vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp;
> >>+ max_kernel_ns = pvclock_scale_delta(max_kernel_ns,
> >>+ vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul,
> >>+ vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_shift);
> >>+ max_kernel_ns += vcpu->last_kernel_ns;
> >>+ }
> >>+
> >> if (unlikely(vcpu->hw_tsc_khz != this_tsc_khz)) {
> >>- kvm_set_time_scale(this_tsc_khz,&vcpu->hv_clock);
> >>+ kvm_get_time_scale(NSEC_PER_SEC / 1000, this_tsc_khz,
> >>+ &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_shift,
> >>+ &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul);
> >> vcpu->hw_tsc_khz = this_tsc_khz;
> >> }
> >>
> >>- /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
> >>- local_irq_save(flags);
> >>- kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC,&vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp);
> >>- ktime_get_ts(&ts);
> >>- monotonic_to_bootbased(&ts);
> >>- local_irq_restore(flags);
> >>+ if (max_kernel_ns> kernel_ns) {
> >>+ s64 overshoot = max_kernel_ns - kernel_ns;
> >>+ ++v->stat.tsc_ahead;
> >>+ if (overshoot> NSEC_PER_SEC / HZ) {
> >>+ ++v->stat.tsc_overshoot;
> >>+ if (printk_ratelimit())
> >>+ pr_debug("ns overshoot: %lld\n", overshoot);
> >>+ }
> >>+ kernel_ns = max_kernel_ns;
> >>+ }
> >>
> >> /* With all the info we got, fill in the values */
> >>-
> >>- vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = ts.tv_nsec +
> >>- (NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)ts.tv_sec) + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
> >>+ vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp = tsc_timestamp;
> >>+ vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = kernel_ns + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
> >>+ vcpu->last_kernel_ns = kernel_ns;
> >>
> >> vcpu->hv_clock.flags = 0;
> >>
> >>@@ -4836,6 +4889,8 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> if (hw_breakpoint_active())
> >> hw_breakpoint_restore();
> >>
> >>+ kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC,&vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
> >>+
> >> atomic_set(&vcpu->guest_mode, 0);
> >> smp_wmb();
> >> local_irq_enable();
> >Is this still needed with the guest side global counter fix?
>
> It's debatable. Instrumentation showed this happen 100% of the time
> when measuring TSC in the compensation sequence. When measuring TSC
> in the hot-path exit from hardware virt, before interrupts are
> enabled, the compensation rate drops to 0%.
>
> That's with an HPET clocksource for kernel time. Kernels with less
> accurate and more granular clocksources would have worse problems,
> of course.
>
> If we're ever going to turn on the "kvmclock is reliable" bit,
> though, I think at least paying attention to the potential need for
> compensation is required - it technically is a backwards warp of
> time, and even if we spend so long getting out of and back into
> hardware virtualization that the guest can't notice it today, that
> might not be true on a faster processor.
>
> Zach
What is worrying is that if this keeps happening the guest clock will
advance faster then it should. The solution you had before with "if
(kernel_ns <= last_ns) compensate()" was simpler and more resistant in
that respect, if i'm not missing anything.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists