linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: KVM: export current vcpu->pause state via pseudo regs

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: <87egx0ilkg.fsf@linaro.org>
Date:	Fri, 01 Aug 2014 10:48:36 +0100
From:	Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>
To:	Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Cc:	Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>,
	kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
	"kvmarm\@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
	arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: KVM: export current vcpu->pause state via pseudo regs


Christoffer Dall writes:

> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 05:45:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 31 July 2014 17:38, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org> wrote:
>> >> > If we are not complaining when setting the pause value to false if it
>> >> > was true before, then we probably also need to wake up the thread in
>> >> > case this is called from another thread, right?
>> >> >
>> >> > or perhaps we should just return an error if you're trying to un-pause a
>> >> > CPU through this interface, hmmmm.
>> >>
>> >> Wouldn't it be an error to mess with any register when the system is not
>> >> in a quiescent state? I was assuming that the wake state is dealt with
>> >> when the run loop finally restarts.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The ABI doesn't really define it as an error (the ABI doesn't enforce
>> > anything right now) so the question is, does it ever make sense to clear
>> > the pause flag through this ioctl?  If not, I think we should just err
>> > on the side of caution and specify in the docs that this is not
>> > supported and return an error.
>> 
>> Consider the case where the reset state of the system is
>> "CPU 0 running, CPUs 1..N stopped", and we're doing an
>> incoming migration to a state where all CPUs are running.
>> In that case we'll be using this ioctl to clear the pause flag,
>> right? (We'll also obviously need to set the PC and other
>> register state correctly before resuming the guest.)
>> 
> Doh, you're right, I somehow had it in my mind that when you send the
> thread a signal, the pause flag would be cleared, but that goes against
> the whole idea of a CPU being turned off for KVM.
>
> But wouldn't we then have to also wake up the thread when clearing the
> pause flag?  It feels strange that the ioctl can clear the pause flag,
> but keep the thread on a wake-queue, and then userspace has to send the
> thread a signal of some sort to wake it up?
<snip>

Isn't the vCPU off the wait-queue by definition if the ioctl exits and
you go through the KVM_SET_ONE_REG stuff?

Once you re-enter the KVM_RUN ioctl it sees the pause_flag as cleared
and falls straight through into kvm_guest_enter() otherwise it will
again wait on wait_event_interruptible(*wq, !vcpu->arch.pause).

-- 
Alex Bennée
--
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/