linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: VMX: enable IPI virtualization

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YWh9YyulGLBHBvEt@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:56:35 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>,
        Jethro Beekman <jethro@...tanix.com>,
        "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Hu, Robert" <robert.hu@...el.com>,
        "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/6] KVM: VMX: enable IPI virtualization

On Sat, Sep 18, 2021, Zeng Guang wrote:
> On 9/11/2021 7:55 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2021, Zeng Guang wrote:
> > > > +		if (!pages)
> > > > +			return -ENOMEM;
> > > > +
> > > > +		to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->pid_table = (void *)page_address(pages);
> > > > +		to_kvm_vmx(kvm)->pid_last_index = KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID;
> > > I don't see the point of pid_last_index if we're hardcoding it to KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID.
> > > If I understand the ucode pseudocode, there's no performance hit in the happy
> > > case, i.e. it only guards against out-of-bounds accesses.
> > > 
> > > And I wonder if we want to fail the build if this grows beyond an order-1
> > > allocation, e.g.
> > > 
> > > 		BUILD_BUG_ON(PID_TABLE_ORDER > 1);
> > > 
> > > Allocating two pages per VM isn't terrible, but 4+ starts to get painful when
> > > considering the fact that most VMs aren't going to need more than one page.  For
> > > now I agree the simplicity of not dynamically growing the table is worth burning
> > > a page.
> > Ugh, Paolo has queued a series which bumps KVM_MAX_VCPU_ID to 4096[*].  That makes
> > this an order-3 allocation, which is quite painful.  One thought would be to let
> > userspace declare the max vCPU it wants to create, not sure if that would work for
> > xAPIC though.
> > 
> > [*] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1111efc8-b32f-bd50-2c0f-4c6f506b544b@redhat.com
> Thus we keep current design as no change.

Not necessarily.  I was pointing out that the current design is already problematic
from a memory allocation perspective.  Burning a few pages per vCPU isn't the end
of the world, but 32kb of _contiguous_ memory is rough, especially when 28kb is
unlikely to be used in many cases.