linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] x86,kvm: Add a kernel parameter to disable PV spinlock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1b3afce5-c95d-5a3a-c36c-953a0654ab2d@suse.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Sep 2017 10:52:06 +0200
From:   Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] x86,kvm: Add a kernel parameter to disable PV
 spinlock

On 05/09/17 10:28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:14:21AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 05/09/17 10:10, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 09:35:40AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> So the problem with qspinlock is that it will revert to a classic
>>>>> test-and-set spinlock if you don't do paravirt but are running a HV.
>>>>
>>>> In the Xen case we just use the bare metal settings when xen_nopvspin
>>>> has been specified. So paravirt, but without modifying any pv_lock_ops
>>>> functions.
>>>
>>> See arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h:virt_spin_lock(). Unless you clear
>>> X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR you get a test-and-set spinlock.
>>>
>>> And as the comment there says, this is a fallback for !paravirt enabled
>>> hypervisors to avoid the worst of the lock holder preemption crud.
>>>
>>> But this very much does not deal with the 1:1 case nicely.
>>>
>>
>> Aah, now I've got it.
>>
>> So maybe we should add virt_spin_lock() to pv_lock_ops? This way e.g.
>> xen_nopvspin could tweak just the virt_spin_lock() case by letting it
>> return false all the time?
> 
> Hmm, that might work. Could we somehow nop that call when
> !X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR?, that saves native from having to do the call
> and would be a win for everyone.

So in fact we want a "always false" shortcut for bare metal and for any
virtualization environment selecting bare metal behavior.

I'll have a try.


Juergen