linux-kernel - Re: disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM: Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat)

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: <YVIAdVxc+q2UWB+J@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:33:41 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Jon Cargille <jcargill@...gle.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        KVM ARM <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        "open list:MIPS" <linux-mips@...r.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, kvm-ppc <kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kernel Mailing List, Linux" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM:
 Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat)

On Mon, Sep 27, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:17 PM Christian Borntraeger
> <borntraeger@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > > So I think there are two possibilities that makes sense:
> > >
> > > * track what is using KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL, and make writes to halt_poll_ns follow that
> >
> > what about using halt_poll_ns for those VMs that did not uses KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL and the private number for those that did.
> 
> Yes, that's what I meant.  David pointed out that doesn't allow you to
> disable halt polling altogether, but for that you can always ask each
> VM's userspace one by one, or just not use KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL. (Also, I
> don't know about Google's usecase, but mine was actually more about
> using KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL to *disable* halt polling on some VMs!).

I kinda like the idea if special-casing halt_poll_ns=0, e.g. for testing or
in-the-field mitigation if halt-polling is broken.  It'd be trivial to support, e.g.

@@ -3304,19 +3304,23 @@ void kvm_vcpu_halt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
                update_halt_poll_stats(vcpu, start, poll_end, !waited);

        if (halt_poll_allowed) {
+               max_halt_poll_ns = vcpu->kvm->max_halt_poll_ns;
+               if (!max_halt_poll_ns || !halt_poll_ns)  <------ squish the max if halt_poll_ns==0
+                       max_halt_poll_ns = halt_poll_ns;
+
                if (!vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu)) {
                        shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
-               } else if (vcpu->kvm->max_halt_poll_ns) {
+               } else if (max_halt_poll_ns) {
                        if (halt_ns <= vcpu->halt_poll_ns)
                                ;
                        /* we had a long block, shrink polling */
                        else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns &&
-                                halt_ns > vcpu->kvm->max_halt_poll_ns)
+                                halt_ns > max_halt_poll_ns)
                                shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
                        /* we had a short halt and our poll time is too small */
-                       else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns < vcpu->kvm->max_halt_poll_ns &&
-                                halt_ns < vcpu->kvm->max_halt_poll_ns)
-                               grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
+                       else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns < max_halt_poll_ns &&
+                                halt_ns < max_halt_poll_ns)
+                               grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu, max_halt_poll_ns);
                } else {
                        vcpu->halt_poll_ns = 0;
                }