| 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: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:48:03 -0700
From: Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: MMU: speedup update_permission_bitmask
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Looks okay to me, but I'm hoping Peter will chime in.
Sorry, this slipped by. Busy couple of weeks!
>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > update_permission_bitmask currently does a 128-iteration loop to,
> > essentially, compute a constant array. Computing the 8 bits in parallel
> > reduces it to 16 iterations, and is enough to speed it up substantially
> > because many boolean operations in the inner loop become constants or
> > simplify noticeably.
> >
> > Because update_permission_bitmask is actually the top item in the profile
> > for nested vmexits, this speeds up an L2->L1 vmexit by about ten thousand
> > clock cycles, or up to 30%:
This is a great improvement! Why not take it a step further and
compute the whole table once at module init time and be done with it?
There are only 5 extra input bits (nx, ept, smep, smap, wp), so the
whole table would only take up (1 << 5) * 16 = 512 bytes. Moreover, if
you had 32 VMs on the host, you'd actually save memory!
> >
> > before after
> > cpuid 35173 25954
> > vmcall 35122 27079
> > inl_from_pmtimer 52635 42675
> > inl_from_qemu 53604 44599
> > inl_from_kernel 38498 30798
> > outl_to_kernel 34508 28816
> > wr_tsc_adjust_msr 34185 26818
> > rd_tsc_adjust_msr 37409 27049
> > mmio-no-eventfd:pci-mem 50563 45276
> > mmio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-mem 34495 30823
> > mmio-datamatch-eventfd:pci-mem 35612 31071
> > portio-no-eventfd:pci-io 44925 40661
> > portio-wildcard-eventfd:pci-io 29708 27269
> > portio-datamatch-eventfd:pci-io 31135 27164
> >
> > (I wrote a small C program to compare the tables for all values of CR0.WP,
> > CR4.SMAP and CR4.SMEP, and they match).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
> > 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > index f47cccace1a1..2a8a6e3e2a31 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -4204,66 +4204,85 @@ static inline bool boot_cpu_is_amd(void)
> > boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits, execonly);
> > }
> >
> > +#define BYTE_MASK(access) \
> > + ((1 & (access) ? 2 : 0) | \
> > + (2 & (access) ? 4 : 0) | \
> > + (3 & (access) ? 8 : 0) | \
> > + (4 & (access) ? 16 : 0) | \
> > + (5 & (access) ? 32 : 0) | \
> > + (6 & (access) ? 64 : 0) | \
> > + (7 & (access) ? 128 : 0))
> > +
> > +
> > static void update_permission_bitmask(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > struct kvm_mmu *mmu, bool ept)
> > {
> > - unsigned bit, byte, pfec;
> > - u8 map;
> > - bool fault, x, w, u, wf, uf, ff, smapf, cr4_smap, cr4_smep, smap = 0;
> > + unsigned byte;
> > +
> > + const u8 x = BYTE_MASK(ACC_EXEC_MASK);
> > + const u8 w = BYTE_MASK(ACC_WRITE_MASK);
> > + const u8 u = BYTE_MASK(ACC_USER_MASK);
> > +
> > + bool cr4_smep = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMEP) != 0;
> > + bool cr4_smap = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMAP) != 0;
> > + bool cr0_wp = is_write_protection(vcpu);
> >
> > - cr4_smep = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMEP);
> > - cr4_smap = kvm_read_cr4_bits(vcpu, X86_CR4_SMAP);
> > for (byte = 0; byte < ARRAY_SIZE(mmu->permissions); ++byte) {
> > - pfec = byte << 1;
> > - map = 0;
> > - wf = pfec & PFERR_WRITE_MASK;
> > - uf = pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK;
> > - ff = pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK;
> > + unsigned pfec = byte << 1;
> > +
> > /*
> > - * PFERR_RSVD_MASK bit is set in PFEC if the access is not
> > - * subject to SMAP restrictions, and cleared otherwise. The
> > - * bit is only meaningful if the SMAP bit is set in CR4.
> > + * Each "*f" variable has a 1 bit for each UWX value
> > + * that causes a fault with the given PFEC.
> > */
> > - smapf = !(pfec & PFERR_RSVD_MASK);
> > - for (bit = 0; bit < 8; ++bit) {
> > - x = bit & ACC_EXEC_MASK;
> > - w = bit & ACC_WRITE_MASK;
> > - u = bit & ACC_USER_MASK;
> > -
> > - if (!ept) {
> > - /* Not really needed: !nx will cause pte.nx to fault */
> > - x |= !mmu->nx;
> > - /* Allow supervisor writes if !cr0.wp */
> > - w |= !is_write_protection(vcpu) && !uf;
> > - /* Disallow supervisor fetches of user code if cr4.smep */
> > - x &= !(cr4_smep && u && !uf);
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * SMAP:kernel-mode data accesses from user-mode
> > - * mappings should fault. A fault is considered
> > - * as a SMAP violation if all of the following
> > - * conditions are ture:
> > - * - X86_CR4_SMAP is set in CR4
> > - * - A user page is accessed
> > - * - Page fault in kernel mode
> > - * - if CPL = 3 or X86_EFLAGS_AC is clear
> > - *
> > - * Here, we cover the first three conditions.
> > - * The fourth is computed dynamically in
> > - * permission_fault() and is in smapf.
> > - *
> > - * Also, SMAP does not affect instruction
> > - * fetches, add the !ff check here to make it
> > - * clearer.
> > - */
> > - smap = cr4_smap && u && !uf && !ff;
> > - }
> >
> > - fault = (ff && !x) || (uf && !u) || (wf && !w) ||
> > - (smapf && smap);
> > - map |= fault << bit;
> > + /* Faults from writes to non-writable pages */
> > + u8 wf = (pfec & PFERR_WRITE_MASK) ? ~w : 0;
> > + /* Faults from user mode accesses to supervisor pages */
> > + u8 uf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? ~u : 0;
Aside: In the EPT case, I wondered why it's necessary to construct any
of the mmu->permissions where PFERR_USER_MASK is set. EPT doesn't have
a 'user' bit. Digging through the code, I see that vmx.c sets
PFERR_USER_MASK for read violations, which normal x86 page tables
don't have. I'm not sure to what effect, but it's used for something
:-)
> > + /* Faults from fetches of non-executable pages*/
> > + u8 ff = (pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK) ? ~x : 0;
> > + /* Faults from kernel mode fetches of user pages */
> > + u8 smepf = 0;
> > + /* Faults from kernel mode accesses of user pages */
> > + u8 smapf = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!ept) {
> > + /* Faults from kernel mode accesses to user pages */
> > + u8 kf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? 0 : u;
> > +
> > + /* Not really needed: !nx will cause pte.nx to fault */
> > + if (!mmu->nx)
> > + ff = 0;
> > +
> > + /* Allow supervisor writes if !cr0.wp */
> > + if (!cr0_wp)
> > + wf = (pfec & PFERR_USER_MASK) ? wf : 0;
> > +
> > + /* Disallow supervisor fetches of user code if cr4.smep */
> > + if (cr4_smep)
> > + smepf = (pfec & PFERR_FETCH_MASK) ? kf : 0;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * SMAP:kernel-mode data accesses from user-mode
> > + * mappings should fault. A fault is considered
> > + * as a SMAP violation if all of the following
> > + * conditions are ture:
> > + * - X86_CR4_SMAP is set in CR4
> > + * - A user page is accessed
> > + * - The access is not a fetch
> > + * - Page fault in kernel mode
> > + * - if CPL = 3 or X86_EFLAGS_AC is clear
> > + *
> > + * Here, we cover the first three conditions.
> > + * The fourth is computed dynamically in permission_fault();
> > + * PFERR_RSVD_MASK bit will be set in PFEC if the access is
> > + * *not* subject to SMAP restrictions.
> > + */
> > + if (cr4_smap)
> > + smapf = (pfec & (PFERR_RSVD_MASK|PFERR_FETCH_MASK)) ? 0 : kf;
> > }
> > - mmu->permissions[byte] = map;
> > +
> > + mmu->permissions[byte] = ff | uf | wf | smepf | smapf;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists