linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow parallel page faults for the 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]

Date:   Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:46:30 -0800
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.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 v2 23/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Allow parallel page faults for the
 TDP MMU

On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 4:40 AM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/02/21 19:57, Ben Gardon wrote:
> >
> > -     write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > +
> > +     if (is_tdp_mmu_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa))
> > +             read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > +     else
> > +             write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
> > +
>
> I'd like to make this into two helper functions, but I'm not sure about
> the naming:
>
> - kvm_mmu_read_lock_for_root/kvm_mmu_read_unlock_for_root: not precise
> because it's really write-locked for shadow MMU roots
>
> - kvm_mmu_lock_for_root/kvm_mmu_unlock_for_root: not clear that TDP MMU
> operations will need to operate in shared-lock mode
>
> I prefer the first because at least it's the conservative option, but
> I'm open to other opinions and suggestions.
>
> Paolo
>

Of the above two options, I like the second one, though I'd be happy
with either. I agree the first is more conservative, in that it's
clear the MMU lock could be shared. It feels a little misleading,
though to have read in the name of the function but then acquire the
write lock, especially since there's code below that which expects the
write lock. I don't know of a good way to abstract this into a helper
without some comments to make it clear what's going on, but maybe
there's a slightly more open-coded compromise:
if (!kvm_mmu_read_lock_for_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa))
         write_lock(&vcpu->kvm->mmu_lock);
or
enum kvm_mmu_lock_mode lock_mode =
get_mmu_lock_mode_for_root(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->arch.mmu->root_hpa);
....
kvm_mmu_lock_for_mode(lock_mode);

Not sure if either of those are actually clearer, but the latter
trends in the direction the RCF took, having an enum to capture
read/write and whether or not yo yield in a lock mode parameter.