linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 03/11] perf/x86: Add support for TSC in nanoseconds as a perf event clock

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]

Date:   Mon, 7 Mar 2022 10:50:56 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>, jgross@...e.com,
        sdeep@...are.com, pv-drivers@...are.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        seanjc@...gle.com, kys@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 03/11] perf/x86: Add support for TSC in nanoseconds as
 a perf event clock

On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:27:45PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 15:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> Currently, when Intel PT is used within a VM guest, it is not possible to
> >> make use of TSC because perf clock is subject to paravirtualization.
> > 
> > Yeah, so how much of that still makes sense, or ever did? AFAIK the
> > whole pv_clock thing is utter crazy. Should we not fix that instead?
> 
> Presumably pv_clock must work with different host operating systems.
> Similarly, KVM must work with different guest operating systems.
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine re-engineering time virtualization
> might be a pretty big deal,  far exceeding the scope of these patches.

I think not; on both counts. That is, I don't think it's going to be
hard, and even it if were, it would still be the right thing to do.

We're not going to add interface just to work around a known broken
piece of crap just because we don't want to fix it.

So I'm thinking we should do the below and simply ignore any paravirt
sched clock offered when there's ART on.

---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
index 4420499f7bb4..a1f179ed39bf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
@@ -145,6 +145,15 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_sched_clock, native_sched_clock);
 
 void paravirt_set_sched_clock(u64 (*func)(void))
 {
+	/*
+	 * Anything with ART on promises to have sane TSC, otherwise the whole
+	 * ART thing is useless. In order to make ART useful for guests, we
+	 * should continue to use the TSC. As such, ignore any paravirt
+	 * muckery.
+	 */
+	if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))
+		return;
+
 	static_call_update(pv_sched_clock, func);
 }