linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker

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: <e8ecb811-6653-cff4-bc11-81f4ccb0dbbf@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:36:40 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier
 with worker


On 2019/8/2 下午10:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:46:13AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:40:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> This must be a proper barrier, like a spinlock, mutex, or
>>>> synchronize_rcu.
>>>
>>> I start with synchronize_rcu() but both you and Michael raise some
>>> concern.
>> I've also idly wondered if calling synchronize_rcu() under the various
>> mm locks is a deadlock situation.
>>
>>> Then I try spinlock and mutex:
>>>
>>> 1) spinlock: add lots of overhead on datapath, this leads 0 performance
>>> improvement.
>> I think the topic here is correctness not performance improvement
> The topic is whether we should revert
> commit 7f466032dc9 ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address")
>
> or keep it in. The only reason to keep it is performance.


Maybe it's time to introduce the config option?


>
> Now as long as all this code is disabled anyway, we can experiment a
> bit.
>
> I personally feel we would be best served by having two code paths:
>
> - Access to VM memory directly mapped into kernel
> - Access to userspace
>
>
> Having it all cleanly split will allow a bunch of optimizations, for
> example for years now we planned to be able to process an incoming short
> packet directly on softirq path, or an outgoing on directly within
> eventfd.


It's not hard consider we've already had our own accssors. But the 
question is (as asked in another thread), do you want permanent GUP or 
still use MMU notifiers.

Thanks