linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: consider the hva in mmu

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: <CAD=HUj5YMtSJY6ZO9TRXHDEfWRM1o3Lrm7nkz=G2VJ_oZ-c5mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:39:16 +0900
From:   David Stevens <stevensd@...omium.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: consider the hva in mmu_notifer retry

> > This has the secondary effect of greatly reducing the likelihood of extreme
>
> Out of curiosity, is this really the _secondary_ effect?  I would expect this
> change to primarily benefit scenarios where the invalidation has gotten
> waylaid for whatever reason.

Yeah, this is the primary benefit. I was thinking about it as the
reduction in page fault retries is the direct effect, and that in turn
leads to a secondary effect of a reduction in the chance of extreme
latency. But I guess that's not a particularly important distinction
to make. I'll reword this.

>
> This needs a comment to explicitly state that 'count > 1' cannot be done at
> this time.  My initial thought is that it would be more intuitive to check for
> 'count > 1' here, but that would potentially check the wrong wrange when count
> goes from 2->1.  The comment about persistence in invalidate_range_start() is a
> good hint, but I think it's worth being explicit to avoid bad "cleanup" in the
> future.
>
> > +     if (unlikely(kvm->mmu_notifier_count)) {
> > +             if (kvm->mmu_notifier_range_start <= hva &&
> > +                 hva < kvm->mmu_notifier_range_end)

I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting here. How exactly
would 'count > 1' be used incorrectly here? I'm fine with adding a
comment, but I'm not sure what the comment needs to clarify.

-David