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: <20141027180252.GC12989@laptop.dumpdata.com>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:02:52 -0400
From:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To:	Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	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>,
	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 Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 01:38:20PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> 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?

It has too. When the modules are loaded the .paravirt symbols are exposed
and the module loader patches that.

And during bootup time (before modules are loaded) it also patches everything
- when it only runs on one CPU.
> 
> So I think we may still need to disable unlock function inlining even if we
> used your way kernel site patching.

No need. Inline should (And is) working just fine.
> 
> 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/