linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 19/24] kvm: x86/mmu: Protect tdp_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: <YBCTBQ4lfJQ51Imn@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Jan 2021 14:09:09 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
        Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@...il.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/24] kvm: x86/mmu: Protect tdp_mmu_pages with a lock

On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 21/01/21 22:32, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Coming back to this series, I wonder if the RCU approach is truly necessary to
> > > get the desired scalability.  If both zap_collapsible_sptes() and NX huge page
> > > recovery zap_only_  leaf SPTEs, then the only path that can actually unlink a
> > > shadow page while holding the lock for read is the page fault path that installs
> > > a huge page over an existing shadow page.
> > > 
> > > Assuming the above analysis is correct, I think it's worth exploring alternatives
> > > to using RCU to defer freeing the SP memory, e.g. promoting to a write lock in
> > > the specific case of overwriting a SP (though that may not exist for rwlocks),
> > > or maybe something entirely different?
> > 
> > You can do the deferred freeing with a short write-side critical section to
> > ensure all readers have terminated.
> 
> Hmm, the most obvious downside I see is that the zap_collapsible_sptes() case
> will not scale as well as the RCU approach.  E.g. the lock may be heavily
> contested when refaulting all of guest memory to (re)install huge pages after a
> failed migration.
> 
> Though I wonder, could we do something even more clever for that particular
> case?  And I suppose it would apply to NX huge pages as well.  Instead of
> zapping the leaf PTEs and letting the fault handler install the huge page, do an
> in-place promotion when dirty logging is disabled.  That could all be done under
> the read lock, and with Paolo's method for deferred free on the back end.  That
> way only the thread doing the memslot update would take mmu_lock for write, and
> only once per memslot update.

Oh, and we could even skip the remote TLB flush in that case since the GPA->HPA
translation is unchanged.