linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock

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]

Date:   Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:51:27 -0600
From:   Peter Gonda <pgonda@...gle.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@...gle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock

>
> This is rather gross, and I'm guessing it adds extra work for the non-lockdep
> case, assuming the compiler isn't so clever that it can figure out that the result
> is never used.  Not that this is a hot path...
>
> Does each lock actually need a separate subclass?  If so, why don't the other
> paths that lock all vCPUs complain?
>
> If differentiating the two VMs is sufficient, then we can pass in SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING
> for the second round of locks.  If a per-vCPU subclass is required, we can use the
> vCPU index and assign evens to one and odds to the other, e.g. this should work and
> compiles to a nop when LOCKDEP is disabled (compile tested only).  It's still gross,
> but we could pretty it up, e.g. add defines for the 0/1 param.

I checked and the perf vCPU subclassing is required. If I just only
use a SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING on the second VM's vCPUs I still see the
warning.

This odds and evens approach seems much better. I'll update to use
that in the V2 unless there is a better idea.