linux-kernel - Re: [patch 3/3] x86: kvm guest side support for KVM_HC_RT

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]

Date:   Sat, 23 Sep 2017 15:41:14 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
        Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
        mingo@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] x86: kvm guest side support for KVM_HC_RT_PRIO
 hypercall

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:56:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 22/09/2017 14:55, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > You just explained it yourself. If the thread that needs to complete
> > what you're waiting on has lower priority, it will _never_ get to run if
> > you're busy waiting on it.
> > 
> > This is _trivial_.
> > 
> > And even for !RT it can be quite costly, because you can end up having
> > to burn your entire slot of CPU time before you run the other task.
> > 
> > Userspace spinning is _bad_, do not do this.
> 
> This is not userspace spinning, it is guest spinning---which has
> effectively the same effect but you cannot quite avoid.

So I'm virt illiterate and have no clue on how all this works; but
wasn't this a vmexit ? (that's what marcelo traced). And once you've
done a vmexit you're a regular task again, not a vcpu.

> But I agree that the solution is properly prioritizing threads that can
> interrupt the VCPU, and using PI mutexes.

Right, if you want to run RT VCPUs the whole emulator/vcpu interaction
needs to be designed for RT.

> I'm not a priori opposed to paravirt scheduling primitives, but I am not
> at all sure that it's required.

Problem is that the proposed thing doesn't solve anything. There is
nothing that prohibits the guest from triggering a vmexit while holding
a spinlock and landing in the self-same problems.