linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 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]

Message-ID: <18715b60-9510-566d-f533-d722d50145d1@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jan 2021 23:12:25 +0800
From:   "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, eranian@...gle.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, wei.w.wang@...el.com,
        luwei.kang@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 04/17] perf: x86/ds: Handle guest PEBS overflow PMI and
 inject it to guest

On 2021/1/15 22:44, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:30:13PM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
>
>>> Are you sure? Spurious NMI/PMIs are known to happen anyway. We have far
>>> too much code to deal with them.
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20170628130748.GI5981@leverpostej/T/
>>
>> In the rr workload, the commit change "the PMI interrupts in skid region
>> should be dropped"
>> is reverted since some users complain that:
>>
>>> It seems to me that it might be reasonable to ignore the interrupt if
>>> the purpose of the interrupt is to trigger sampling of the CPUs
>>> register state.  But if the interrupt will trigger some other
>>> operation, such as a signal on an fd, then there's no reason to drop
>>> it.
>> I assume that if the PMI drop is unacceptable, either will spurious PMI
>> injection.
>>
>> I'm pretty open if you insist that we really need to do this for guest PEBS
>> enabling.
> That was an entirely different issue. We were dropping events on the
> floor because they'd passed priv boundaries. So there was an actual
> event, and we made it go away.

Thanks for your clarification and support.

> What we're talking about here is raising an PMI with BUFFER_OVF set,
> even if the DS is empty. That should really be harmless. We'll take the
> PMI, find there's nothing there, and do nothing.

The only harm point is confusing the guest PEBS user with
the behavior of pebs_interrupt_threshold.

Now that KVM has to break it due to cross-mapping issue,
Let me implement this idea in the next version w/ relevant performance data.