linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a dedicated counter for guest PEBS

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: <20200309154445.GL1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 08:44:45 -0700
From:   Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
        namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
        hpa@...or.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, vkuznets@...hat.com,
        wanpengli@...cent.com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
        pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
        fenghua.yu@...el.com, like.xu@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/11] perf/x86/core: Support KVM to assign a
 dedicated counter for guest PEBS

> Suppose your KVM thing claims counter 0/2 (ICL/SKL) for some random PEBS
> event, and then the host wants to use PREC_DIST.. Then one of them will
> be screwed for no reason what so ever.

It's no different from some user using an event that requires some
specific counter.

> 
> How is that not destroying scheduling freedom? Any other situation we'd
> have moved the !PREC_DIST PEBS event to another counter.

Anyways what are you suggesting to do instead? Do you have a better proposal?

The only alternative I know to doing this would be to go through the PEBS
buffer in the guest and patch the applicable counter field up on each PMI.

I tried that at some point (still have code somewhere), but it was
quite complicated and tricky and somewhat slow, so I gave up eventually.

It's also inherently racy because if the guest starts looking at
the PEBS buffer before an PMI it could see the unpatched values
Given I don't know any real software which would break from this,
but such "polled PEBS" usages are certainly concievable.

The artificial constraint is a lot simpler and straight forward,
and also doesn't have any holes like this.

-Andi