linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to separate kvm_x86

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:   Wed, 25 Mar 2020 16:41:07 +0100
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc:     Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        John Haxby <john.haxby@...cle.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/37] KVM: x86: Move "flush guest's TLB" logic to
 separate kvm_x86_ops hook

On 25/03/20 11:23, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> What do you think about the following (very lightly
> tested)?
> 
> commit 485b4a579605597b9897b3d9ec118e0f7f1138ad
> Author: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> Date:   Wed Mar 25 11:14:25 2020 +0100
> 
>     KVM: x86: make Hyper-V PV TLB flush use tlb_flush_guest()
>     
>     Hyper-V PV TLB flush mechanism does TLB flush on behalf of the guest
>     so doing tlb_flush_all() is an overkill, switch to using tlb_flush_guest()
>     (just like KVM PV TLB flush mechanism) instead. Introduce
>     KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH to support the change.
>     
>     Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 167729624149..8c5659ed211b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@
>  #define KVM_REQ_APICV_UPDATE \
>  	KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(25, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
>  #define KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH_CURRENT	KVM_ARCH_REQ(26)
> +#define KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH		KVM_ARCH_REQ(27)
>  
>  #define CR0_RESERVED_BITS                                               \
>  	(~(unsigned long)(X86_CR0_PE | X86_CR0_MP | X86_CR0_EM | X86_CR0_TS \
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index a86fda7a1d03..0d051ed11f38 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -1425,8 +1425,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *current_vcpu, u64 ingpa,
>  	 * vcpu->arch.cr3 may not be up-to-date for running vCPUs so we can't
>  	 * analyze it here, flush TLB regardless of the specified address space.
>  	 */
> -	kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(kvm,
> -				    KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP,
> +	kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(kvm, KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH,
>  				    vcpu_mask, &hv_vcpu->tlb_flush);
>  

Looks good, but why are you dropping KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP?

Paolo