linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 3/6] KVM: x86: interrupt based APF page-ready event delivery

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: <87ees6h3cm.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:40:41 +0200
From:   Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/6] KVM: x86: interrupt based APF page-ready event delivery

Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:

> On 29/04/20 11:36, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> +
>> +	Type 1 page (page missing) events are currently always delivered as
>> +	synthetic #PF exception. Type 2 (page ready) are either delivered
>> +	by #PF exception (when bit 3 of MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN is clear) or
>> +	via an APIC interrupt (when bit 3 set). APIC interrupt delivery is
>> +	controlled by MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF2.
>
> I think we should (in the non-RFC version) block async page faults
> completely and only keep APF_HALT unless the guest is using page ready
> interrupt delivery.

Sure, we can do that. This is, however, a significant behavioral change:
APF_HALT frees the host, not the guest, so even if the combined
performance of all guests on the same pCPU remain the same guests with
e.g. a lot of simultaneously running processes may suffer more.

In theory, we can keep two mechanisms side by side for as long as we
want but if the end goal is to have '#PF abuse eliminated' than we'll
have to get rid of the legacy one some day. The day when the new
mechanism lands is also a good choice :-)

-- 
Vitaly