linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/17] perf: x86/ds: Handle guest PEBS overflow PMI and inject it to guest

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:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 10:14:49 +0800
From:   "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Kleen, Andi" <andi.kleen@...el.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, luwei.kang@...el.com,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Mark Gross <mgross@...ux.intel.com>,
        Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/17] perf: x86/ds: Handle guest PEBS overflow PMI and
 inject it to guest

Hi Peter,

On 2020/11/19 2:07, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 12:15:09AM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>
>>> ISTR there was lots of fail trying to virtualize it earlier. What's
>>> changed? There's 0 clues here.
>> Ah, now we have EPT-friendly PEBS facilities supported since Ice Lake
>> which makes guest PEBS feature possible w/o guest memory pinned.
> OK.
>
>>> Why are the host and guest DS area separate, why can't we map them to
>>> the exact same physical pages?
>> If we map both guest and host DS_AREA to the exact same physical pages,
>> - the guest can access the host PEBS records, which means that the host
>> IP maybe leaked, because we cannot predict the time guest drains records and
>> it would be over-designed to clean it up before each vm-entry;
>> - different tasks/vcpus on the same pcpu cannot share the same PEBS DS
>> settings from the same physical page. For example, some require large
>> PEBS and reset values, while others do not.
>>
>> Like many guest msrs, we use the separate guest DS_AREA for the guest's
>> own use and it avoids mutual interference as little as possible.
> OK, but the code here wanted to inspect the guest DS from the host. It
> states this is somehow complicated/expensive. But surely we can at the
> very least map the first guest DS page somewhere so we can at least
> access the control bits without too much magic.
We note that the SDM has a contiguous present memory mapping
assumption about the DS save area and the PEBS buffer area.

Therefore, we revisit your suggestion here and move it a bit forward:

When the PEBS is enabled, KVM will cache the following values:
- gva ds_area (kvm msr trap)
- hva1 for "gva ds_area" (walk guest page table)
- hva2 for "gva pebs_buffer_base" via hva1 (walk guest page table)

if the "gva ds_area" cache hits,
- access PEBS "interrupt threshold" and "Counter Reset[]" via hva1
- get "gva2 pebs_buffer_base" via __copy_from_user(hva1)

if the "gva2 pebs_buffer_base" cache hits,
- we get "gva2 pebs_index" via __copy_from_user(hva2),
- rewrite the guest PEBS records via hva2 and pebs_index

If any cache misses, setup the cache values via walking tables again.

I wonder if you would agree with this optimization idea,
we look forward to your confirmation for the next step.

Thanks,
Like Xu