linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/26] Runtime paravirt patching

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 10 Apr 2020 02:55:44 -0700
From:   Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        x86@...nel.org
Cc:     peterz@...radead.org, hpa@...or.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
        namit@...are.com, mhiramat@...nel.org, jgross@...e.com,
        bp@...en8.de, vkuznets@...hat.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, mihai.carabas@...cle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/26] Runtime paravirt patching

On 2020-04-08 7:12 a.m., Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Ankur Arora <ankur.a.arora@...cle.com> writes:
>> A KVM host (or another hypervisor) might advertise paravirtualized
>> features and optimization hints (ex KVM_HINTS_REALTIME) which might
>> become stale over the lifetime of the guest. For instance, the
>> host might go from being undersubscribed to being oversubscribed
>> (or the other way round) and it would make sense for the guest
>> switch pv-ops based on that.
> 
> If your host changes his advertised behaviour then you want to fix the
> host setup or find a competent admin.
> 
>> This lockorture splat that I saw on the guest while testing this is
>> indicative of the problem:
>>
>>    [ 1136.461522] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#8 stuck for 22s! [lock_torture_wr:12865]
>>    [ 1136.461542] CPU: 8 PID: 12865 Comm: lock_torture_wr Tainted: G W L 5.4.0-rc7+ #77
>>    [ 1136.461546] RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0x15/0x220
>>
>> (Caused by an oversubscribed host but using mismatched native pv_lock_ops
>> on the gues.)
> 
> And this illustrates what? The fact that you used a misconfigured setup.
> 
>> This series addresses the problem by doing paravirt switching at
>> runtime.
> 
> You're not addressing the problem. Your fixing the symptom, which is
> wrong to begin with.
> 
>> The alternative use-case is a runtime version of apply_alternatives()
>> (not posted with this patch-set) that can be used for some safe subset
>> of X86_FEATUREs. This could be useful in conjunction with the ongoing
>> late microcode loading work that Mihai Carabas and others have been
>> working on.
> 
> This has been discussed to death before and there is no safe subset as
> long as this hasn't been resolved:
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.DEB.2.21.1909062237580.1902@nanos.tec.linutronix.de/
Thanks. I was thinking of fairly limited subset: ex re-evaluate
X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS to make sure static_cpu_has() reflects reality
but I guess that has second order effects here.

Ankur

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          tglx
>