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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <87h8lld9hl.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:10:14 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.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

Roman Kagan <rkagan@...tuozzo.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:37:44PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> The problem we're trying to solve here is: with PV TLB flush and IPI we
>> need to walk through the supplied list of VP_INDEXes and get VCPU
>> ids. Usually they match. But in case they don't [...]
>
> Why wouldn't they *in practice*?  Only if the userspace wanted to be
> funny and assigned VP_INDEXes randomly?  I'm not sure we need to
> optimize for this case.

Can someone please remind me why we allow userspace to change it in the
first place?

>
> Note that the userspace can actually do nasty things with these
> VP_INDEXes, like, say, have them non-unique.  We need to be resilent to
> it, but don't need to optimize for it.
>
> I think I'd rather have a warning in kvm_hv_set_msr if the VP_INDEX
> being assigned is not equal to the vcpu index, and start worrying about
> optimization only if this warning starts being triggered by real
> hypervisor applications.
>
> Anyway I don't see an urgent need to bloat this patchset with optimizing
> this translation; it can be done separately, if needed.

Sure, I can use get_vcpu_by_vpidx() in the patchset pretending that is's
always fast and if we find a valid case where it is not - we'll just
optimize it later. Sounds sane to me.

-- 
  Vitaly