| 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: <4C18872E.4030105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:11:26 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
CC: avi@...hat.com, mtosatti@...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
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).
>
This is one issue of kvmclock which tries to supply a clocksource whose
precision may even higher than host.
> 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(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 1afecd7..7ec2472 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -338,6 +338,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> struct page *time_page;
> u64 last_host_tsc;
> u64 last_host_ns;
> + u64 last_guest_tsc;
> + u64 last_kernel_ns;
>
> bool nmi_pending;
> bool nmi_injected;
> @@ -455,6 +457,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_stat {
> u32 hypercalls;
> u32 irq_injections;
> u32 nmi_injections;
> + u32 tsc_overshoot;
> + u32 tsc_ahead;
> };
>
> struct kvm_x86_ops {
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 52d7d34..703ea43 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -138,6 +138,8 @@ struct kvm_stats_debugfs_item debugfs_entries[] = {
> { "insn_emulation_fail", VCPU_STAT(insn_emulation_fail) },
> { "irq_injections", VCPU_STAT(irq_injections) },
> { "nmi_injections", VCPU_STAT(nmi_injections) },
> + { "tsc_overshoot", VCPU_STAT(tsc_overshoot) },
> + { "tsc_ahead", VCPU_STAT(tsc_ahead) },
> { "mmu_shadow_zapped", VM_STAT(mmu_shadow_zapped) },
> { "mmu_pte_write", VM_STAT(mmu_pte_write) },
> { "mmu_pte_updated", VM_STAT(mmu_pte_updated) },
> @@ -927,33 +929,84 @@ static int kvm_recompute_guest_time(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
> struct kvm_vcpu_arch *vcpu = &v->arch;
> void *shared_kaddr;
> unsigned long this_tsc_khz;
> + s64 kernel_ns, max_kernel_ns;
> + u64 tsc_timestamp;
>
> if ((!vcpu->time_page))
> return 0;
>
> - this_tsc_khz = get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
> - put_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
> + /*
> + * 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 -
>
Since you do the comparison with kernel_ns, so what you need here is
tsc_timestamp which looks more like the 'last' tsc seen by guest.
> + 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) {
>
Both max_kernel_ns and kernel_ns are not adjusted by kvmclock_offset, so
this comparing is not safe after migration.
> + 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;
> + }
>
A tsc_behind or something like this would make the problem more clear,
and tsc_ahead should be zero when host using tsc as its clocksource.
>
> /* 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);
>
This could be dropped since it does not take the time of guest execution
into account.
> +
> atomic_set(&vcpu->guest_mode, 0);
> smp_wmb();
> local_irq_enable();
>
--
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