linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS

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:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:20:01 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, devel@...uxdriverproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST, SPACE} hypercalls when possible

Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:

> On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> >>   * Fills in gva_list starting from offset. Returns the number of items added.
>> >> @@ -93,10 +95,19 @@ static void hyperv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpus,
>> >>  	if (cpumask_equal(cpus, cpu_present_mask)) {
>> >>  		flush->flags |= HV_FLUSH_ALL_PROCESSORS;
>> >>  	} else {
>> >> +		/*
>> >> +		 * It is highly likely that VP ids are in ascending order
>> >> +		 * matching Linux CPU ids; Check VP index for the highest CPU
>> >> +		 * in the supplied set to see if EX hypercall is required.
>> >> +		 * This is just a best guess but should work most of the time.
>> >
>> > TLB flushing based on 'best guess' and 'should work most of the time' is
>> > not a brilliant approach.
>> >
>> 
>> Oh no no no, that's not what I meant :-)
>> 
>> We have the following problem: from the supplied CPU set we need to
>> figure out if we can get away with HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,
>> SPACE} hypercalls which are cheaper or if we need to use more expensing
>> HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST, SPACE}_EX ones. The dividing line is
>> the highest VP_INDEX of the supplied CPU set: in case it is < 64 cheaper
>> hypercalls are OK. Now how do we check that? In the patch I have the
>> following approach:
>> 1) Check VP number for the highest CPU in the supplied set. In case it
>> is > 64 we for sure need more expensive hypercalls. This is the "guess"
>> which works most of the time because Linux CPU ids usually match
>> VP_INDEXes.
>> 
>> 2) In case the answer to the previous question was negative we start
>> preparing input for the cheaper hypercall. However, if while walking the
>> CPU set we meet a CPU with VP_INDEX higher than 64 we'll discard the
>> prepared input and switch to the more expensive hypercall.
>> 
>> Said that the 'guess' here is just an optimization to avoid walking the
>> whole CPU set when we find the required answer quickly by looking at the
>> highest bit. This will help big systems with hundreds of CPUs.
>
> Care to fix the comment to avoid the offending words?
>

Sure, will re-word in v2.

-- 
  Vitaly