| 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: <59ff09e8-6975-20c2-78de-282585e2953d@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 12:24:26 +0200
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
thuth@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] s390x: KVM: Implementation of Multiprocessor
Topology-Change-Report
On 9/6/21 8:37 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.08.21 10:26, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> We let the userland hypervisor know if the machine support the CPU
>> topology facility using a new KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
>>
>> The PTF instruction will report a topology change if there is any change
>> with a previous STSI_15_2 SYSIB.
>> Changes inside a STSI_15_2 SYSIB occur if CPU bits are set or clear
>> inside the CPU Topology List Entry CPU mask field, which happens with
>> changes in CPU polarization, dedication, CPU types and adding or
>> removing CPUs in a socket.
>>
>> The reporting to the guest is done using the Multiprocessor
>> Topology-Change-Report (MTCR) bit of the utility entry of the guest's
>> SCA which will be cleared during the interpretation of PTF.
>>
>> To check if the topology has been modified we use a new field of the
>> arch vCPU to save the previous real CPU ID at the end of a schedule
>> and verify on next schedule that the CPU used is in the same socket.
>>
>> We deliberatly ignore:
>> - polarization: only horizontal polarization is currently used in linux.
>> - CPU Type: only IFL Type are supported in Linux
>> - Dedication: we consider that only a complete dedicated CPU stack can
>> take benefit of the CPU Topology.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>
>
>> @@ -228,7 +232,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>> __u8 icptcode; /* 0x0050 */
>> __u8 icptstatus; /* 0x0051 */
>> __u16 ihcpu; /* 0x0052 */
>> - __u8 reserved54; /* 0x0054 */
>> + __u8 mtcr; /* 0x0054 */
>> #define IICTL_CODE_NONE 0x00
>> #define IICTL_CODE_MCHK 0x01
>> #define IICTL_CODE_EXT 0x02
>> @@ -246,6 +250,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>> #define ECB_TE 0x10
>> #define ECB_SRSI 0x04
>> #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT 0x02
>> +#define ECB_PTF 0x01
>
> From below I understand, that ECB_PTF can be used with stfl(11) in the
> hypervisor.
>
> What is to happen if the hypervisor doesn't support stfl(11) and we
> consequently cannot use ECB_PTF? Will QEMU be able to emulate PTF fully?
Yes.
>
>
>> __u8 ecb; /* 0x0061 */
>> #define ECB2_CMMA 0x80
>> #define ECB2_IEP 0x20
>> @@ -747,6 +752,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>> bool skey_enabled;
>> struct kvm_s390_pv_vcpu pv;
>> union diag318_info diag318_info;
>> + int prev_cpu;
>> };
>> struct kvm_vm_stat {
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index b655a7d82bf0..ff6d8a2b511c 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -568,6 +568,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm,
>> long ext)
>> case KVM_CAP_S390_VCPU_RESETS:
>> case KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG:
>> case KVM_CAP_S390_DIAG318:
>> + case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>
> I would have expected instead
>
> r = test_facility(11);
> break
The idea is that QEMU will emulate both PTF and SYSIB_15 in this case.
>
> ...
>
>> r = 1;
>> break;
>> case KVM_CAP_SET_GUEST_DEBUG2:
>> @@ -819,6 +820,23 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
>> struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
>> icpt_operexc_on_all_vcpus(kvm);
>> r = 0;
>> break;
>> + case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> + if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
>> + r = -EBUSY;
>> + } else {
>
> ...
> } else if (test_facility(11)) {
> set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
> set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
> r = 0;
> } else {
> r = -EINVAL;
> }
>
> similar to how we handle KVM_CAP_S390_VECTOR_REGISTERS.
>
> But I assume you want to be able to support hosts without ECB_PTF, correct?
yes, this was the idea.
>
>
>> + set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
>> + set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
>> + r = 0;
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> + VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "ENABLE: CPU TOPOLOGY %s",
>> + r ? "(not available)" : "(success)");
>> + break;
>> +
>> + r = -EINVAL;
>> + break;
>
> ^ dead code
>
:) indeed , sorry.
> [...]
>
>> }
>> void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> + vcpu->arch.prev_cpu = vcpu->cpu;
>> vcpu->cpu = -1;
>> if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
>> __stop_cpu_timer_accounting(vcpu);
>> @@ -3198,6 +3239,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu)
>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>> if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
>> +
>> + /* PTF needs both host and guest facilities to enable
>> interpretation */
>> + if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11) && test_facility(11))
>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
>
> Here you say we need both ...
Yes because for interpretation we need both.
But if PTF is not interpreted we will emulate it in QEMU.
>
>> +
>> if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> index 4002a24bc43a..50d67190bf65 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>> /* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
>> if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
>> scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>> + /* CPU Topology */
>> + if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> + scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
>
> but here you don't check?
Arrrg, yes, this is false, we must check both here too.
>
>> /* transactional execution */
>> if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
>> /* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> index d9e4aabcb31a..081ce0cd44b9 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> @@ -1112,6 +1112,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
>> #define KVM_CAP_BINARY_STATS_FD 203
>> #define KVM_CAP_EXIT_ON_EMULATION_FAILURE 204
>> #define KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE 205
>> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY 206
>
> We'll need a Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst description.
>
> I'm not completely confident that the way we're handling the
> capability+facility is the right approach. It all feels a bit suboptimal.
>
> Except stfl(74) -- STHYI --, we never enable a facility via
> set_kvm_facility() that's not available in the host. And STHYI is
> special such that it is never implemented in hardware.
Then we can fall back to KVM_facility + in kernel emulation but if for
PTF it will be quite simple, for STSI_15 it will be much bigger.
>
> I'll think about what might be cleaner once I get some more details
> about the interaction with stfl(11) in the hypervisor.
>
And I just saw I for an unknown reason forgot two patches in the QEMU
series:
s390x: kvm: make topology change report pending
s390x: kvm: enable CPU Topology Function
So I will publish a new QEMU series this afternoon with the comments
from Thomas.
thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists