linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] KVM: LAPIC: Apply change to TDCR right away to the timer

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: <CANRm+CxOuuA6z-5TMkdvMoDOdbW1Bv16BAC40maWcjEs32jJGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 6 Oct 2017 21:59:33 +0800
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>
To:     Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] KVM: LAPIC: Apply change to TDCR right away to the timer

2017-10-06 21:14 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>:
> 2017-10-05 18:54-0700, Wanpeng Li:
>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>>
>> The description in the Intel SDM of how the divide configuration
>> register is used: "The APIC timer frequency will be the processor's bus
>> clock or core crystal clock frequency divided by the value specified in
>> the divide configuration register."
>>
>> Observation of baremetal shown that when the TDCR is change, the TMCCT
>> does not change or make a big jump in value, but the rate at which it
>> count down change.
>>
>> The patch update the emulation to APIC timer to so that a change to the
>> divide configuration would be reflected in the value of the counter and
>> when the next interrupt is triggered.
>>
>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
>> @@ -1458,6 +1458,36 @@ static void start_sw_period(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
>>               HRTIMER_MODE_ABS_PINNED);
>>  }
>>
>> +static bool update_target_expiration(struct kvm_lapic *apic, uint32_t old_divisor)
>> +{
>> +     ktime_t now, remaining;
>> +     u64 tscl = rdtsc(), delta;
>> +
>> +     now = ktime_get();
>> +     remaining = ktime_sub(apic->lapic_timer.target_expiration, now);
>> +     if (ktime_to_ns(remaining) < 0)
>> +             remaining = 0;
>> +     delta = mod_64(ktime_to_ns(remaining), apic->lapic_timer.period);
>
> Hm, can this happen?

Yeah, when the hrtimer has already expired. I can catch it during testing.

>
>> +     if (!delta)
>> +             return false;
>> +
>> +     apic->lapic_timer.period = (u64)kvm_lapic_get_reg(apic, APIC_TMICT)
>> +             * APIC_BUS_CYCLE_NS * apic->divide_count;
>
> I think that it would be safer to always modify the period.

Agreed.

>
>> +     delta = delta * apic->divide_count / old_divisor;
>> +
>> +     if (!apic->lapic_timer.period)
>> +             return false;
>> +
>> +     limit_periodic_timer_frequency(apic);
>> +
>> +     apic->lapic_timer.tscdeadline = kvm_read_l1_tsc(apic->vcpu, tscl) +
>> +             nsec_to_cycles(apic->vcpu, delta);
>
> We could do that without rdtsc() for added precision and maybe
> performance:

Agreed.

>
>         apic->lapic_timer.tscdeadline += nsec_to_cycles(apic->vcpu, delta) -
>                                          nsec_to_cycles(apic->vcpu, remaining);
>
>         // not sure how a negative operand would behave:
>         // nsec_to_cycles(apic->vcpu, delta - remaining)
>
>> +     apic->lapic_timer.target_expiration = ktime_add_ns(now, delta);
>> +
>> +     return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static bool set_target_expiration(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
>>  {
>>       ktime_t now;
>> @@ -1750,13 +1780,20 @@ int kvm_lapic_reg_write(struct kvm_lapic *apic, u32 reg, u32 val)
>>               start_apic_timer(apic);
>>               break;
>>
>> -     case APIC_TDCR:
>> +     case APIC_TDCR: {
>> +             uint32_t old_divisor = apic->divide_count;
>> +
>>               if (val & 4)
>>                       apic_debug("KVM_WRITE:TDCR %x\n", val);
>>               kvm_lapic_set_reg(apic, APIC_TDCR, val);
>>               update_divide_count(apic);
>> +             if (apic->divide_count != old_divisor) {
>> +                     hrtimer_cancel(&apic->lapic_timer.timer);
>> +                     if (update_target_expiration(apic, old_divisor))
>> +                             restart_apic_timer(apic);
>
> I think we can lose a timer here when we cancel a hrtimer whose
> expiration time passes before update_target_expiration(), so it never
> gets restarted.
>
> Doing restart_apic_timer() unconditionally seems better.  It behaves
> well if we try to restart a timer that has already fired.

Agreed.

Regards,
Wanpeng Li

>
> Thanks.
>
>> +             }
>>               break;
>> -
>> +     }
>>       case APIC_ESR:
>>               if (apic_x2apic_mode(apic) && val != 0) {
>>                       apic_debug("KVM_WRITE:ESR not zero %x\n", val);
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>