| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150330235533.GA15792@amt.cnet>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 20:55:44 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: "Wu, Feng" <feng.wu@...el.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>
Subject: Re: [v3 24/26] KVM: Update Posted-Interrupts Descriptor when vCPU is
blocked
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:46:55AM +0000, Wu, Feng wrote:
>
>
> > -----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);
Yes.
> > if (vcpu->mode == EXITING_GUEST_MODE || vcpu->requests
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Point *1.
> > || 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?
Please check point *1 above. The code will go back to
"if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu)"
And perform the pir->virr sync.
--
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