linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests

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: <20170310005126.GA19516@foober.ini.cmu.edu>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2017 19:51:27 -0500
From:   "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:29:31AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> Some guests call mwait without checking the cpu flags.  We currently
> emulate that as a NOP but on VMX we can do better: let guest stop the
> CPU until timer or IPI.  CPU will be busy but that isn't any worse than
> a NOP emulation.

Are you getting an IPI if another VCPU writes to the MONITOR-ed memory
location? If not, you'd be waking up too late and fail to meet the
specified behavior of the MONITOR/MWAIT instruction pair.

> Note that mwait within guests is not the same as on real hardware
> because you must halt if you want to go deep into sleep.  Thus it isn't
> a good idea to use the regular MWAIT flag in CPUID for that.  Add a flag
> in the hypervisor leaf instead.

Is it a good idea to advertise MWAIT capability to guests? The
misbehaving ones will call it willy-nilly, true, but aren't compliant
ones better off falling back to some alternative method (typically
using a HLT-based idle loop instead of a MONITOR/MWAIT based one) ?

Thanks,
--Gabriel

> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt  | 3 +++
>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h | 1 +
>  arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c                 | 3 +++
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c                   | 4 ----
>  4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> index 3c65feb..5caa234 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/cpuid.txt
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT              ||     7 || guest checks this feature bit
>                                     ||       || before enabling paravirtualized
>                                     ||       || spinlock support.
>  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> +KVM_FEATURE_MWAIT                  ||     8 || guest can use monitor/mwait
> +                                   ||       || to halt the VCPU.
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  KVM_FEATURE_CLOCKSOURCE_STABLE_BIT ||    24 || host will warn if no guest-side
>                                     ||       || per-cpu warps are expected in
>                                     ||       || kvmclock.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> index cff0bb6..9cc77a7 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>  #define KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME		5
>  #define KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI		6
>  #define KVM_FEATURE_PV_UNHALT		7
> +#define KVM_FEATURE_MWAIT		8
>  
>  /* The last 8 bits are used to indicate how to interpret the flags field
>   * in pvclock structure. If no bits are set, all flags are ignored.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index efde6cc..fe3d292 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -594,6 +594,9 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
>  		if (sched_info_on())
>  			entry->eax |= (1 << KVM_FEATURE_STEAL_TIME);
>  
> +		if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_MWAIT))
> +			entry->eax = (1 << KVM_FEATURE_MWAIT);
> +
>  		entry->ebx = 0;
>  		entry->ecx = 0;
>  		entry->edx = 0;
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index 4bfe349..b167aba 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -3547,13 +3547,9 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
>  	      CPU_BASED_USE_IO_BITMAPS |
>  	      CPU_BASED_MOV_DR_EXITING |
>  	      CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETING |
> -	      CPU_BASED_MWAIT_EXITING |
> -	      CPU_BASED_MONITOR_EXITING |
>  	      CPU_BASED_INVLPG_EXITING |
>  	      CPU_BASED_RDPMC_EXITING;
>  
> -	printk(KERN_ERR "cleared CPU_BASED_MWAIT_EXITING + CPU_BASED_MONITOR_EXITING\n");
> -
>  	opt = CPU_BASED_TPR_SHADOW |
>  	      CPU_BASED_USE_MSR_BITMAPS |
>  	      CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_SECONDARY_CONTROLS;
> -- 
> MST