linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/2] x86, vdso, pvclock: Simplify and speed up the vdso pvclock reader

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: <54AB9FFD.6070309@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 06 Jan 2015 09:42:37 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86, vdso, pvclock: Simplify and speed up the vdso
 pvclock reader



On 05/01/2015 23:48, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> > > But there is no guarantee that vCPU-N has updated its pvti when
>>> > > vCPU-M resumes guest instruction execution.
>> > 
>> > Still confused.  So we can freeze all vCPUs in the host, then update
>> > pvti 1, then resume vCPU 1, then update pvti 0?  In that case, we have
>> > a problem, because vCPU 1 can observe pvti 0 mid-update, and KVM
>> > doesn't increment the version pre-update, and we can return completely
>> > bogus results.
> Yes.

But then the getcpu test would fail (1->0).  Even if you have an ABA
situation (1->0->1), it's okay because the pvti that is fetched is the
one returned by the first getcpu.

Paolo

--
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/