linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support

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: <YPeA5ReGSwBvWGSa@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jul 2021 11:05:25 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 2/4] arm64: add guest pvstate support

On (21/07/12 16:42), Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > 
> > PV-vcpu-state is a per-CPU struct, which, for the time being,
> > holds boolean `preempted' vCPU state. During the startup,
> > given that host supports PV-state, each guest vCPU sends
> > a pointer to its per-CPU variable to the host as a payload
> 
> What is the expected memory type for this memory region? What is its
> life cycle? Where is it allocated from?

Guest per-CPU area, which physical addresses is shared with the host.

> > with the SMCCC HV call, so that host can update vCPU state
> > when it puts or loads vCPU.
> > 
> > This has impact on the guest's scheduler:
> > 
> > [..]
> >   wake_up_process()
> >    try_to_wake_up()
> >     select_task_rq_fair()
> >      available_idle_cpu()
> >       vcpu_is_preempted()
> > 
> > Some sched benchmarks data is available on the github page [0].
> > 
> > [0] https://github.com/sergey-senozhatsky/arm64-vcpu_is_preempted
> 
> Please include these results in the cover letter. I tend to reply to
> email while offline, and I can't comment on GH.

ACK.

> > +struct vcpu_state {
> 
> If this is KVM specific (which it most likely is), please name-space
> it correctly, and move it to a KVM-specific location.

ACK.

> > +	bool	preempted;
> > +	u8	reserved[63];
> 
> Why 63? Do you attach any particular meaning to a 64byte structure
> (and before you say "cache line size", please look at some of the
> cache line sizes we have to deal with...).

We do have some future plans to share some bits of the guest's context
with the host.

> This should also be versioned from day-1, one way or another.

Makes sense.

> > +};
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> >  #include <linux/static_call_types.h>
> >  
> > @@ -20,8 +25,22 @@ static inline u64 paravirt_steal_clock(int cpu)
> >  
> >  int __init pv_time_init(void);
> >  
> > +bool dummy_vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu);
> > +
> > +extern struct static_key pv_vcpu_is_preempted_enabled;
> > +DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> > +
> > +static inline bool paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	return static_call(pv_vcpu_is_preempted)(cpu);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int __init pv_vcpu_state_init(void);
> > +
> >  #else
> >  
> > +#define pv_vcpu_state_init() do {} while (0)
> > +
> >  #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0)
> >  
> >  #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > index 75fed4460407..d8fc46795d94 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > @@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ struct pv_time_stolen_time_region {
> >  
> >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pv_time_stolen_time_region, stolen_time_region);
> >  
> > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vcpu_state, vcpus_states);
> 
> nit: there is only one 'state' structure per CPU, so I'd prefer the
> singular form.

ACK.

> > +struct static_key pv_vcpu_is_preempted_enabled;
> > +
> > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> > +
> >  static bool steal_acc = true;
> >  static int __init parse_no_stealacc(char *arg)
> >  {
> > @@ -165,3 +170,92 @@ int __init pv_time_init(void)
> >  
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> > +
> > +bool dummy_vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> 
> Why does this have to be global?

I think this can be moved away from the header, so then we don't need
to DECLARE_STATIC_CALL() with a dummy function.

> > +static bool has_pv_vcpu_state(void)
> > +{
> > +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > +
> > +	/* To detect the presence of PV time support we require SMCCC 1.1+ */
> > +	if (arm_smccc_1_1_get_conduit() == SMCCC_CONDUIT_NONE)
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> > +			     ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_VCPU_STATE_FEATURES,
> > +			     &res);
> > +
> > +	if (res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS)
> > +		return false;
> > +	return true;
> 
> Please move all this over the the KVM-specific discovery mechanism.

Will take a look.

> > +static int __pv_vcpu_state_hook(unsigned int cpu, int event)
> > +{
> > +	struct arm_smccc_res res;
> > +	struct vcpu_state *st;
> > +
> > +	st = &per_cpu(vcpus_states, cpu);
> > +	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(event, virt_to_phys(st), &res);
> > +	if (res.a0 != SMCCC_RET_SUCCESS)
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int vcpu_state_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > +	int ret = __pv_vcpu_state_hook(cpu, ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_VCPU_STATE_INIT);
> > +
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		pr_warn("Unable to ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_STATE_INIT\n");
> 
> pr_warn_once(), please.

ACK.