| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87wnrbylxv.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 17:03:56 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Jinank Jain <jinankj@...zon.de>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.de>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Properly restore PMU state during live-migration
Hi Jinank,
On Thu, 03 Jun 2021 12:05:54 +0100,
Jinank Jain <jinankj@...zon.de> wrote:
>
> Currently if a guest is live-migrated while it is actively using perf
> counters, then after live-migrate it will notice that all counters would
> suddenly start reporting 0s. This is due to the fact we are not
> re-creating the relevant perf events inside the kernel.
>
> Usually on live-migration guest state is restored using KVM_SET_ONE_REG
> ioctl interface, which simply restores the value of PMU registers
> values but does not re-program the perf events so that the guest can seamlessly
> use these counters even after live-migration like it was doing before
> live-migration.
>
> Instead there are two completely different code path between guest
> accessing PMU registers and VMM restoring counters on
> live-migration.
>
> In case of KVM_SET_ONE_REG:
>
> kvm_arm_set_reg()
> ...... kvm_arm_sys_reg_set_reg()
> ........... reg_from_user()
>
> but in case when guest tries to access these counters:
>
> handle_exit()
> ..... kvm_handle_sys_reg()
> ..........perform_access()
> ...............access_pmu_evcntr()
> ...................kvm_pmu_set_counter_value()
> .......................kvm_pmu_create_perf_event()
>
> The drawback of using the KVM_SET_ONE_REG interface is that the host pmu
> events which were registered for the source instance and not present for
> the destination instance.
I can't parse this sentence. Do you mean "are not present"?
> Thus passively restoring PMCR_EL0 using
> KVM_SET_ONE_REG interface would not create the necessary host pmu events
> which are crucial for seamless guest experience across live migration.
>
> In ordet to fix the situation, on first vcpu load we should restore
> PMCR_EL0 in the same exact way like the guest was trying to access
> these counters. And then we will also recreate the relevant host pmu
> events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jinank Jain <jinankj@...zon.de>
> Cc: Alexander Graf (AWS) <graf@...zon.de>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
> Cc: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>
> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 10 ++++++++--
> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> include/kvm/arm_pmu.h | 3 +++
> 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 7cd7d5c8c4bc..2376ad3c2fc2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -745,6 +745,7 @@ static inline int kvm_arch_vcpu_run_pid_change(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> void kvm_set_pmu_events(u32 set, struct perf_event_attr *attr);
> void kvm_clr_pmu_events(u32 clr);
>
> +void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> #else
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index e720148232a0..c66f6d16ec06 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -408,6 +408,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
> if (has_vhe())
> kvm_vcpu_load_sysregs_vhe(vcpu);
> kvm_arch_vcpu_load_fp(vcpu);
> + kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore(vcpu);
If this only needs to be run once per vcpu, why not trigger it from
kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), which is also called once per vcpu?
This can done on the back of a request, saving most of the overhead
and not requiring any extra field. Essentially, something like the
(untested) patch below.
> kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(vcpu);
> if (kvm_arm_is_pvtime_enabled(&vcpu->arch))
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RECORD_STEAL, vcpu);
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> index fd167d4f4215..12a40f4b5f0d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> @@ -574,10 +574,16 @@ void kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 val)
> kvm_pmu_disable_counter_mask(vcpu, mask);
> }
>
> - if (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C)
> + /*
> + * Cycle counter needs to reset in case of first vcpu load.
> + */
> + if (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C || !kvm_arm_pmu_v3_restored(vcpu))
Why? There is no architectural guarantee that a counter resets to 0
without writing PMCR_EL0.C. And if you want the guest to continue
counting where it left off, resetting the counter is at best
counter-productive.
So I must be missing something...
> kvm_pmu_set_counter_value(vcpu, ARMV8_PMU_CYCLE_IDX, 0);
>
> - if (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P) {
> + /*
> + * All the counters needs to reset in case of first vcpu load.
> + */
> + if (val & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P || !kvm_arm_pmu_v3_restored(vcpu)) {
Same thing here.
> for_each_set_bit(i, &mask, 32)
> kvm_pmu_set_counter_value(vcpu, i, 0);
> }
The rest of the changes should be unnecessary with the patch below.
Thanks,
M.
>From 1be188ab71867632a8c17384be6e55f47f42aa8b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 16:50:02 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Restore PMU configuration on first run
Restoring a guest with an active virtual PMU results in no perf
counters being instanciated on the host side. Not quite what
you'd expect from a restore.
In order to fix this, force a writeback of PMCR_EL0 on the first
run of a vcpu (using a new request so that it happens once the
vcpu has been loaded). This will in turn create all the host-side
counters that were missing.
Reported-by: Jinank Jain <jinankj@...zon.de>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
---
arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++++
arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 3 +++
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 7cd7d5c8c4bc..6336b4309114 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
#define KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
#define KVM_REQ_RECORD_STEAL KVM_ARCH_REQ(3)
#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GICv4 KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
+#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU KVM_ARCH_REQ(5)
#define KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_CAPS (KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_PROTECT_ENABLE | \
KVM_DIRTY_LOG_INITIALLY_SET)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index e720148232a0..facf4d41d32a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -689,6 +689,10 @@ static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
vgic_v4_load(vcpu);
preempt_enable();
}
+
+ if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU, vcpu))
+ kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(vcpu,
+ __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0));
}
}
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
index fd167d4f4215..a0bbb7111f57 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
@@ -850,6 +850,9 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return -EINVAL;
}
+ /* One-off reload of the PMU on first run */
+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU, vcpu);
+
return 0;
}
--
2.30.2
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists