linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kvm: Add guest side support for free memory hints

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:   Mon, 4 Feb 2019 17:46:22 -0800
From:   Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
Cc:     Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] kvm: Add guest side support for free memory hints

> On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 4, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 15:00 -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2019, at 10:15 AM, Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Add guest support for providing free memory hints to the KVM hypervisor for
>>>>> freed pages huge TLB size or larger. I am restricting the size to
>>>>> huge TLB order and larger because the hypercalls are too expensive to be
>>>>> performing one per 4K page. Using the huge TLB order became the obvious
>>>>> choice for the order to use as it allows us to avoid fragmentation of higher
>>>>> order memory on the host.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have limited the functionality so that it doesn't work when page
>>>>> poisoning is enabled. I did this because a write to the page after doing an
>>>>> MADV_DONTNEED would effectively negate the hint, so it would be wasting
>>>>> cycles to do so.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/x86/include/asm/page.h |   13 +++++++++++++
>>>>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c       |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> index 7555b48803a8..4487ad7a3385 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/page.h
>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,19 @@
>>>>> 
>>>>> struct page;
>>>>> 
>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_GUEST
>>>>> +#include <linux/jump_label.h>
>>>>> +extern struct static_key_false pv_free_page_hint_enabled;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#define HAVE_ARCH_FREE_PAGE
>>>>> +void __arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
>>>>> +static inline void arch_free_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +   if (static_branch_unlikely(&pv_free_page_hint_enabled))
>>>>> +           __arch_free_page(page, order);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +#endif
>>>> 
>>>> This patch and the following one assume that only KVM should be able to hook
>>>> to these events. I do not think it is appropriate for __arch_free_page() to
>>>> effectively mean “kvm_guest_free_page()”.
>>>> 
>>>> Is it possible to use the paravirt infrastructure for this feature,
>>>> similarly to other PV features? It is not the best infrastructure, but at least
>>>> it is hypervisor-neutral.
>>> 
>>> I could probably tie this into the paravirt infrastructure, but if I
>>> did so I would probably want to pull the checks for the page order out
>>> of the KVM specific bits and make it something we handle in the inline.
>>> Doing that I would probably make it a paravirtual hint that only
>>> operates at the PMD level. That way we wouldn't incur the cost of the
>>> paravirt infrastructure at the per 4K page level.
>> 
>> If I understand you correctly, you “complain” that this would affect
>> performance.
> 
> It wasn't so much a "complaint" as an "observation". What I was
> getting at is that if I am going to make it a PV operation I might set
> a hard limit on it so that it will specifically only apply to huge
> pages and larger. By doing that I can justify performing the screening
> based on page order in the inline path and avoid any PV infrastructure
> overhead unless I have to incur it.

I understood. I guess my use of “double quotes” was lost in translation. ;-)

One more point regarding [2/4] - you may want to consider using madvise_free
instead of madvise_dontneed to avoid unnecessary EPT violations.