linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization support

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: <544E830C.6070307@hp.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 13:38:20 -0400
From:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <paolo.bonzini@...il.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Scott J Norton <scott.norton@...com>,
	Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] pvqspinlock, x86: Add para-virtualization support

On 10/24/2014 04:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 02:10:38PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> Since enabling paravirt spinlock will disable unlock function inlining,
>> a jump label can be added to the unlock function without adding patch
>> sites all over the kernel.
> But you don't have to. My patches allowed for the inline to remain,
> again reducing the overhead of enabling PV spinlocks while running on a
> real machine.
>
> Look at:
>
>    http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140615130154.213923590@chello.nl
>
> In particular this hunk:
>
> Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
> +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt_patch_64.c
> @@ -22,6 +22,10 @@ DEF_NATIVE(pv_cpu_ops, swapgs, "swapgs")
>   DEF_NATIVE(, mov32, "mov %edi, %eax");
>   DEF_NATIVE(, mov64, "mov %rdi, %rax");
>
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)&&  defined(CONFIG_QUEUE_SPINLOCK)
> +DEF_NATIVE(pv_lock_ops, queue_unlock, "movb $0, (%rdi)");
> +#endif
> +
>   unsigned paravirt_patch_ident_32(void *insnbuf, unsigned len)
>   {
>          return paravirt_patch_insns(insnbuf, len,
> @@ -61,6 +65,9 @@ unsigned native_patch(u8 type, u16 clobb
>                  PATCH_SITE(pv_cpu_ops, clts);
>                  PATCH_SITE(pv_mmu_ops, flush_tlb_single);
>                  PATCH_SITE(pv_cpu_ops, wbinvd);
> +#if defined(CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS)&&  defined(CONFIG_QUEUE_SPINLOCK)
> +               PATCH_SITE(pv_lock_ops, queue_unlock);
> +#endif
>
>          patch_site:
>                  ret = paravirt_patch_insns(ibuf, len, start, end);
>
>
> That makes sure to overwrite the callee-saved call to the
> pv_lock_ops::queue_unlock with the immediate asm "movb $0, (%rdi)".
>
>
> Therefore you can retain the inlined unlock with hardly (there might be
> some NOP padding) any overhead at all. On PV it reverts to a callee
> saved function call.

My concern is that spin_unlock() can be called in many places, including 
loadable kernel modules. Can the paravirt_patch_ident_32() function able 
to patch all of them in reasonable time? How about a kernel module 
loaded later at run time?

So I think we may still need to disable unlock function inlining even if 
we used your way kernel site patching.

Regards,
Longman
--
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/