linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data when SEV is active

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: <554c6fb5-0de4-5415-9970-0d09325d718b@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Sep 2018 12:19:13 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc:     Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@....com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data
 when SEV is active

On 11/09/2018 12:01, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:26:21AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Usually the kvmclock structs are all the same, but there is support for
>> old machines with inconsistent TSCs (across different sockets typically).
> 
> Would that be a problem, though? Sounds like an "improvement" to me. :-)
> 
> I mean, if we keep using the same TSC across all vCPUs, the guest will
> actually see a single TSC and thus have stable and synchronized TSCs.
> Unlike the host.

That's exactly what kvmclock is for, it provides a stable and
synchronized clock on top of unsynchronized TSCs.  But that's also why
you need one struct per vCPU, at least in the synchronized case.

Paolo

> I.e., the guest will be better than the host! :-)
>