linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted

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: <20120621064358.GS6533@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 21 Jun 2012 09:43:58 +0300
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
	Srikar <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"Nikunj A. Dadhania" <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: handle last_boosted_vcpu = 0 case

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 04:51:04PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:50:50 +0530
> Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In ple handler code, last_boosted_vcpu (lbv) variable is
> > serving as reference point to start when we enter.
> 
> > Also statistical analysis (below) is showing lbv is not very well
> > distributed with current approach.
> 
> You are the second person to spot this bug today (yes, today).
> 
> Due to time zones, the first person has not had a chance yet to
> test the patch below, which might fix the issue...
> 
> Please let me know how it goes.
> 
> ====8<====
> 
> If last_boosted_vcpu == 0, then we fall through all test cases and
> may end up with all VCPUs pouncing on vcpu 0.  With a large enough
> guest, this can result in enormous runqueue lock contention, which
> can prevent vcpu0 from running, leading to a livelock.
> 
> Changing < to <= makes sure we properly handle that case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> ---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 7e14068..1da542b 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>  	 */
>  	for (pass = 0; pass < 2 && !yielded; pass++) {
>  		kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> -			if (!pass && i < last_boosted_vcpu) {
> +			if (!pass && i <= last_boosted_vcpu) {
>  				i = last_boosted_vcpu;
>  				continue;
>  			} else if (pass && i > last_boosted_vcpu)
> 
Looks correct. We can simplify this by introducing something like:

#define kvm_for_each_vcpu_from(idx, n, vcpup, kvm) \
        for (n = atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus); \
             n && (vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx)) != NULL; \
             n--, idx = (idx+1) % atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus))

--
			Gleb.
--
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/