linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary

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: <56ea69fe-87b0-154b-e286-efce9233864e@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 18:47:42 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation
 unless necessary

On 31/03/21 18:41, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> That said, the easiest way to avoid this would be to always update
>> mmu_notifier_count.
> Updating mmu_notifier_count requires taking mmu_lock, which would defeat the
> purpose of these shenanigans.

Okay; I wasn't sure if the problem was contention with page faults in 
general, or just the long critical sections from the MMU notifier 
callbacks.  Still updating mmu_notifier_count unconditionally is a good 
way to break up the patch in two and keep one commit just for the rwsem 
nastiness.

>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
>>> +	down_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
>>> +#endif
>>>   	rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
>>> +	up_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
>>> +#endif
>> Please do this unconditionally, the cost is minimal if the rwsem is not
>> contended (as is the case if the architecture doesn't use MMU notifiers at
>> all).
> It's not the cost, it's that mmu_notifier_slots_lock doesn't exist.  That's an
> easily solved problem, but then the lock wouldn't be initialized since
> kvm_init_mmu_notifier() is a nop.  That's again easy to solve, but IMO would
> look rather weird.  I guess the counter argument is that __kvm_memslots()
> wouldn't need #ifdeffery.

Yep.  Less #ifdefs usually wins. :)

> These are the to ideas I've come up with:
> 
> Option 1:
> 	static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
> 	{
> 		init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
> 
> 	#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> 		kvm->mmu_notifier.ops = &kvm_mmu_notifier_ops;
> 		return mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
> 	#else
> 		return 0;
> 	#endif
> 	}

Option 2 is also okay I guess, but the simplest is option 1 + just init 
it in kvm_create_vm.

Paolo