| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 15:05:41 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
Cc: Bijan Mottahedeh <bijan.mottahedeh@...anix.com>,
Raphael Norwitz <raphael.norwitz@...anix.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: move srcu lock out of kvm_vcpu_check_block
On 30/04/21 22:45, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, Jon Kohler wrote:
>> To improve performance, this moves kvm->srcu lock logic from
>> kvm_vcpu_check_block to kvm_vcpu_running and wraps directly around
>> check_events. Also adds a hint for callers to tell
>> kvm_vcpu_running whether or not to acquire srcu, which is useful in
>> situations where the lock may already be held. With this in place, we
>> see roughly 5% improvement in an internal benchmark [3] and no more
>> impact from this lock on non-nested workloads.
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index efc7a82ab140..354f690cc982 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -9273,10 +9273,24 @@ static inline int vcpu_block(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> -static inline bool kvm_vcpu_running(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +static inline bool kvm_vcpu_running(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool acquire_srcu)
>> {
>> - if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
>> - kvm_x86_ops.nested_ops->check_events(vcpu);
>> + if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
>> + if (acquire_srcu) {
>> + /*
>> + * We need to lock because check_events could call
>> + * nested_vmx_vmexit() which might need to resolve a
>> + * valid memslot. We will have this lock only when
>> + * called from vcpu_run but not when called from
>> + * kvm_vcpu_check_block > kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable.
>> + */
>> + int idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
>> + kvm_x86_ops.nested_ops->check_events(vcpu);
>> + srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, idx);
>> + } else {
>> + kvm_x86_ops.nested_ops->check_events(vcpu);
>> + }
>> + }
>
> Obviously not your fault, but I absolutely detest calling check_events() from
> kvm_vcpu_running. I would much prefer to make baby steps toward cleaning up the
> existing mess instead of piling more weirdness on top.
>
> Ideally, APICv support would be fixed to not require a deep probe into nested
> events just to see if a vCPU can run. But, that's probably more than we want to
> bite off at this time.
>
> What if we add another nested_ops API to check if the vCPU has an event, but not
> actually process the event? I think that would allow eliminating the SRCU lock,
> and would get rid of the most egregious behavior of triggering a nested VM-Exit
> in a seemingly innocuous helper.
>
> If this works, we could even explore moving the call to nested_ops->has_events()
> out of kvm_vcpu_running() and into kvm_vcpu_has_events(); I can't tell if the
> side effects in vcpu_block() would get messed up with that change :-/
>
> Incomplete patch...
I think it doesn't even have to be *nested* events. Most events are the
same inside or outside guest mode, as they already special case guest
mode inside the kvm_x86_ops callbacks (e.g. kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed
is already called by kvm_vcpu_has_events).
I think we only need to extend kvm_x86_ops.nested_ops->hv_timer_pending
to cover MTF, plus double check that INIT and SIPI are handled
correctly, and then the call to check_nested_events can go away.
Paolo
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> index 00339d624c92..15f514891326 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c
> @@ -3771,15 +3771,17 @@ static bool nested_vmx_preemption_timer_pending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> to_vmx(vcpu)->nested.preemption_timer_expired;
> }
>
> -static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static int __vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool only_check)
> {
> struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
> unsigned long exit_qual;
> - bool block_nested_events =
> - vmx->nested.nested_run_pending || kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu);
> bool mtf_pending = vmx->nested.mtf_pending;
> struct kvm_lapic *apic = vcpu->arch.apic;
>
> + bool block_nested_events = only_check ||
> + vmx->nested.nested_run_pending ||
> + kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu);
> +
> /*
> * Clear the MTF state. If a higher priority VM-exit is delivered first,
> * this state is discarded.
> @@ -3837,7 +3839,7 @@ static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> }
>
> if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> - if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending)
> + if (vmx->nested.nested_run_pending || only_check)
> return -EBUSY;
> if (!nested_vmx_check_exception(vcpu, &exit_qual))
> goto no_vmexit;
> @@ -3886,10 +3888,23 @@ static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> }
>
> no_vmexit:
> - vmx_complete_nested_posted_interrupt(vcpu);
> + if (!check_only)
> + vmx_complete_nested_posted_interrupt(vcpu);
> + else if (vmx->nested.pi_desc && vmx->nested.pi_pending)
> + return -EBUSY;
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static bool vmx_has_nested_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + return !!__vmx_check_nested_events(vcpu, true);
> +}
> +
> +static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + return __vmx_check_nested_events(vcpu, false);
> +}
> +
> static u32 vmx_get_preemption_timer_value(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> ktime_t remaining =
> @@ -6627,6 +6642,7 @@ __init int nested_vmx_hardware_setup(int (*exit_handlers[])(struct kvm_vcpu *))
> }
>
> struct kvm_x86_nested_ops vmx_nested_ops = {
> + .has_event = vmx_has_nested_event,
> .check_events = vmx_check_nested_events,
> .hv_timer_pending = nested_vmx_preemption_timer_pending,
> .triple_fault = nested_vmx_triple_fault,
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index a829f1ab60c3..5df01012cb1f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -9310,6 +9310,10 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> update_cr8_intercept(vcpu);
> kvm_lapic_sync_to_vapic(vcpu);
> }
> + } else if (is_guest_mode(vcpu)) {
> + r = kvm_check_nested_events(vcpu);
> + if (r < 0)
> + req_immediate_exit = true;
> }
>
> r = kvm_mmu_reload(vcpu);
> @@ -9516,8 +9520,10 @@ static inline int vcpu_block(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> static inline bool kvm_vcpu_running(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> - if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> - kvm_check_nested_events(vcpu);
> + if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> + (kvm_test_request(KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT, vcpu) ||
> + kvm_x86_ops.nested_ops->has_event(vcpu)))
> + return true;
>
> return (vcpu->arch.mp_state == KVM_MP_STATE_RUNNABLE &&
> !vcpu->arch.apf.halted);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists