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  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, 1 Apr 2019 09:24:06 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <>
To:     Borislav Petkov <>
Cc:     LKML <>,
        Nadav Amit <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>,,
        Radim Krčmář <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/kvm: Convert some slow-path static_cpu_has()
 callers to boot_cpu_has()

On 31/03/19 17:12, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 04:20:11PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> These are not slow path.
> Those functions do a *lot* of stuff like a bunch of MSR reads which are
> tens of cycles each at least.

The MSR reads and writes are not done in the common case.  Also, you
cannot really expect boot_cpu_data to be in L1 in these functions since
they run after the guest---or if they do, each L1 line you fill in with
host data is one line you "steal" from the guest.


> I don't think a RIP-relative MOV and a BT:
>         movq    boot_cpu_data+20(%rip), %rax    # MEM[(const long unsigned int *)&boot_cpu_data + 20B], _45
>         btq     $59, %rax       #, _45
> are at all noticeable.
> On latest AMD and Intel uarch those are 2-4 cycles, according to

Powered by blists - more mailing lists