| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 04:46:55 +0000
From: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
CC: "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"gleb@...nel.org" <gleb@...nel.org>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dwmw2@...radead.org" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
"joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
"alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
"jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com" <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
"eric.auger@...aro.org" <eric.auger@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [v3 24/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
is blocked
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcelo Tosatti [mailto:mtosatti@...hat.com]
> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 3:30 AM
> To: Wu, Feng
> Cc: hpa@...or.com; tglx@...utronix.de; mingo@...hat.com; x86@...nel.org;
> gleb@...nel.org; pbonzini@...hat.com; dwmw2@...radead.org;
> joro@...tes.org; alex.williamson@...hat.com; jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com;
> eric.auger@...aro.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org; kvm@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [v3 24/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU
> is blocked
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 06:34:14AM +0000, Wu, Feng wrote:
> > > > Currently, the following code is executed before local_irq_disable() is
> called,
> > > > so do you mean 1)moving local_irq_disable() to the place before it. 2) after
> > > interrupt
> > > > is disabled, set KVM_REQ_EVENT in case the ON bit is set?
> > >
> > > 2) after interrupt is disabled, set KVM_REQ_EVENT in case the ON bit
> > > is set.
> >
> > Here is my understanding about your comments here:
> > - Disable interrupts
> > - Check 'ON'
> > - Set KVM_REQ_EVENT if 'ON' is set
> >
> > Then we can put the above code inside " if
> (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win) "
> > just like it used to be. However, I still have some questions about this
> comment:
> >
> > 1. Where should I set KVM_REQ_EVENT? In function vcpu_enter_guest(), or
> other places?
>
> See below:
>
> > If in vcpu_enter_guest(), since currently local_irq_disable() is called after
> 'KVM_REQ_EVENT'
> > is checked, is it helpful to set KVM_REQ_EVENT after local_irq_disable() is
> called?
>
> local_irq_disable();
>
> *** add code here ***
So we need add code like the following here, right?
if ('ON' is set)
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
>
> if (vcpu->mode == EXITING_GUEST_MODE || vcpu->requests
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> || need_resched() || signal_pending(current)) {
> vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> smp_wmb();
> local_irq_enable();
> preempt_enable();
> vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
> r = 1;
> goto cancel_injection;
> }
>
> > 2. 'ON' is set by VT-d hardware, it can be set even when interrupt is disabled
> (the related bit in PIR is also set).
>
> Yes, we are checking if the HW has set an interrupt in PIR while
> outside VM (which requires PIR->VIRR transfer by software).
>
> If the interrupt it set by hardware after local_irq_disable(),
> VMX-entry will handle the interrupt and perform the PIR->VIRR
> transfer and reevaluate interrupts, injecting to guest
> if necessary, is that correct ?
>
> > So does it make sense to check 'ON' and set KVM_REQ_EVENT accordingly
> after interrupt is disabled?
>
> To replace the costly
>
> + */
> + if (kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update)
> + kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
> + kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(vcpu));
>
> Yes, i think so.
After adding the "checking ON and setting KVM_REQ_EVENT" operations listed in my
comments above, do you mean we still need to keep the costly code above
inside "if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu) || req_int_win) {}" in function
vcpu_enter_guest() as it used to be? If yes, my question is what is the exact purpose
of "checking ON and setting KVM_REQ_EVENT" operations? Here is the code flow in
vcpu_enter_guest():
1. Check KVM_REQ_EVENT, if it is set, sync pir->virr
2. Disable interrupts
3. Check ON and set KVM_REQ_EVENT -- Here, we set KVM_REQ_EVENT, but it is
checked in the step 1, which means, we cannot get any benefits even we set it here,
since the "pir->virr" sync operation was done in step 1, between step 3 and VM-Entry,
we don't synchronize the pir to virr. So even we set KVM_REQ_EVENT here, the interrupts
remaining in PIR cannot be delivered to guest during this VM-Entry, right?
Thanks,
Feng
>
> > I might miss something in your comments, if so please point out. Thanks a
> lot!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Feng
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "if (kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update)
> > > > kvm_x86_ops->hwapic_irr_update(vcpu,
> > > > kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(vcpu));
> > > >
> > > > > kvm_lapic_find_highest_irr(vcpu) eats some cache
> > > > > (4 cachelines) versus 1 cacheline for reading ON bit.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please remove blocked and wakeup_cpu, they should not be
> > > necessary.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do you think wakeup_cpu is not needed, when vCPU is
> blocked,
> > > > > > > > wakeup_cpu saves the cpu which the vCPU is blocked on, after
> vCPU
> > > > > > > > is woken up, it can run on a different cpu, so we need wakeup_cpu
> to
> > > > > > > > find the right list to wake up the vCPU.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If the vCPU was moved it should have updated IRTE destination field
> > > > > > > to the pCPU which it has moved to?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Every time a vCPU is scheduled to a new pCPU, the IRTE destination
> filed
> > > > > > would be updated accordingly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When vCPU is blocked. To wake up the blocked vCPU, we need to find
> > > which
> > > > > > list the vCPU is blocked on, and this is what wakeup_cpu used for?
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, perhaps prev_vcpu is a better name.
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean "prev_pcpu"?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists