linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] perf/x86/amd: Don't touch the Host-only bit inside the guest hypervisor

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: <Ykb400opkmZFsnVN@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 1 Apr 2022 15:06:27 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Dongli Si <kvmx86@...il.com>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de,
        dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        joro@...tes.org, kim.phillips@....com, liam.merwick@...cle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, mingo@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] perf/x86/amd: Don't touch the Host-only bit inside
 the guest hypervisor

On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 04:29:11PM +0800, Dongli Si wrote:
> On 28/03/2022 14:03, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Better I suppose, but I think the comments can be improved by covering
> > the 'why' of things. We can all read the code to see the what of it.
> 
> I will add comments to the code to explain 'why'.
> 
> > Anyway, doesn't this also affect behaviour? I'm guessing this HO bit is
> > only set by perf-record for events it wants to record on the host. But
> > by not setting it, we'll also record the activity of the guest.
> 
> I think the HO/GO bit can only be set on the host, and should only be set
> if SVM is enabled.
> 
> When the SVM is disabled, set the HO/GO bit will cause the performance
> counters to not work.
> 
> Set the HO/GO bit inside the guest will cause the guest emitted
> "unchecked MSR access error" warning, can be triggered by running
> "perf stat -e instructions:G ls" in the guest, because this will set
> the GO bit in the guest, and perf_ctr_virt_mask just mask the HO bit.
> 
> My patch does not affect the host, it just fixes the bug in the guest.
> 
> > So suppose we create a CPU wide HO event, then it will only count L0
> > activity, right? Any L1 (or higher) activite will be invisible.
> 
> I don't quite understand your question.
> 
> > But with this change on, the L1 HV doesn't provide these same semantics,
> > it's guest will be included in that host counter.
> 
> I don't think applying this patch will cause L2 guests to be included in
> the host counter.
> 
> > Or is there additional counter {dis,en}abling on virt enter,exit (resp.)
> > to achieve these semantics?
> 
> I don't think there is such a counter.

If SVM enter/exit don't twiddle with counter EN bits, how is all this
supposed to work consistently then?