linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: hyperv: introduce vp_index_to_vcpu

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180629101134.GA15656@rkaganb.sw.ru>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:11:36 +0300
From:   Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        "Michael Kelley (EOSG)" <Michael.H.Kelley@...rosoft.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mmorsy@...hat.com>,
        Cathy Avery <cavery@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] KVM: x86: hyperv: introduce vp_index_to_vcpu_idx
 mapping

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 03:53:10PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> While it is easy to get VP index from vCPU index the reverse task is hard.
> Basically, to solve it we have to walk all vCPUs checking if their VP index
> matches. For hypercalls like HvFlushVirtualAddress{List,Space}* and the
> upcoming HvSendSyntheticClusterIpi* where a single CPU may be specified in
> the whole set this is obviously sub-optimal.
> 
> As VP index can be set to anything <= U32_MAX by userspace using plain
> [0..MAX_VP_INDEX] array is not a viable option. Use condensed sorted
> array with logarithmic search complexity instead. Use RCU to make read
> access as fast as possible and maintain atomicity of updates.

Quoting TLFS 5.0C section 7.8.1:

> Virtual processors are identified by using an index (VP index). The
> maximum number of virtual processors per partition supported by the
> current implementation of the hypervisor can be obtained through CPUID
> leaf 0x40000005. A virtual processor index must be less than the
> maximum number of virtual processors per partition.

so this is a dense index, and VP_INDEX >= KVM_MAX_VCPUS is invalid.  I
think we're better off enforcing this in kvm_hv_set_msr and keep the
translation simple.  If the algorithm in get_vcpu_by_vpidx is not good
enough (and yes it can be made to return NULL early on vpidx >=
KVM_MAX_VCPUS instead of taking the slow path) then a simple index array
of KVM_MAX_VCPUS entries should certainly do.

Roman.