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:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:27:21 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     "Michael Kelley \(EOSG\)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "devel\@linuxdriverproject.org" <devel@...uxdriverproject.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Tianyu Lan <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible

KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com> writes:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Kelley (EOSG)
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 10:57 AM
>> To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>; x86@...nel.org
>> Cc: devel@...uxdriverproject.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; KY
>> Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>; Haiyang Zhang
>> <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>; Stephen Hemminger
>> <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>; Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>; Ingo
>> Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>; H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>; Tianyu Lan
>> <Tianyu.Lan@...rosoft.com>
>> Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86/hyper-v: use cheaper
>> HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_{LIST,SPACE} hypercalls when possible
>> 
>> ...
>>>
>> This is a good idea.  We should probably do the same with the hypercalls for
>> sending
>> IPIs -- try the simpler version first and move to the more complex _EX
>> version only
>> if necessary.
> I am not sure if this would work correctly. When I was developing the IPI enlightenment, 
> what I remember was that the guest is expected to use the API recommended by the Hypervisor.
>

I was under the same impression when I implemented PV TLB flush. Turns
out HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_RECOMMENDED is a misnomer or at least
Windows treats it as HV_X64_EX_PROCESSOR_MASKS_AVAILABLE instead using
only when needed.

My guess would be that the situation with IPI is the same. In any case I
can try to implement Hyper-V style PV IPIs for Windows in KVM and we'll
see how Windows uses these hypercalls :-)

-- 
  Vitaly