linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/tsx: fix KVM guest live migration for tsx=on

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: <20220412204025.evmoxjr5beqindro@guptapa-desk>
Date:   Tue, 12 Apr 2022 13:40:25 -0700
From:   Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        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" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
        Neelima Krishnan <neelima.krishnan@...el.com>,
        "kvm @ vger . kernel . org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tsx: fix KVM guest live migration for tsx=on

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 01:36:20PM +0000, Jon Kohler wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 11, 2022, at 7:45 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/11/22 12:35, Jon Kohler wrote:
>>> Also, while I’ve got you, I’d also like to send out a patch to simply
>>> force abort all transactions even when tsx=on, and just be done with
>>> TSX. Now that we’ve had the patch that introduced this functionality
>>> I’m patching for roughly a year, combined with the microcode going
>>> out, it seems like TSX’s numbered days have come to an end.
>>
>> Could you elaborate a little more here?  Why would we ever want to force
>> abort transactions that don't need to be aborted for some reason?
>
>Sure, I'm talking specifically about when users of tsx=on (or
>CONFIG_X86_INTEL_TSX_MODE_ON) on X86_BUG_TAA CPU SKUs. In this situation,
>TSX features are enabled, as are TAA mitigations. Using our own use case
>as an example, we only do this because of legacy live migration reasons.
>
>This is fine on Skylake (because we're signed up for MDS mitigation anyhow)
>and fine on Ice Lake because TAA_NO=1; however this is wicked painful on
>Cascade Lake, because MDS_NO=1 and TAA_NO=0, so we're still signed up for
>TAA mitigation by default. On CLX, this hits us on host syscalls as well as
>vmexits with the mds clear on every one :(
>
>So tsx=on is this oddball for us, because if we switch to auto, we'll break
>live migration for some of our customers (but TAA overhead is gone), but
>if we leave tsx=on, we keep the feature enabled (but no one likely uses it)
>and still have to pay the TAA tax even if a customer doesn't use it.
>
>So my theory here is to extend the logical effort of the microcode driven
>automatic disablement as well as the tsx=auto automatic disablement and
>have tsx=on force abort all transactions on X86_BUG_TAA SKUs, but leave
>the CPU features enumerated to maintain live migration.

This won't help on CLX as server parts did not get the microcode driven
automatic disablement. On CLX CPUID.RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT will not be set.

What could work on CLX is TSX_CTRL_RTM_DISABLE=1 and
TSX_CTRL_CPUID_CLEAR=0. This can be done for tsx=auto or with a new mode
tsx=fake|compat. IMO, adding a new mode would be better, otherwise
tsx=auto behavior will differ depending on the kernel version.

Provided that software using TSX is following below guidance [*]:

   When Intel TSX is disabled at runtime using TSX_CTRL, but the CPUID
   enumeration of Intel TSX is not cleared, existing software using RTM may
   see aborts for every transaction. The abort will always return a 0
   status code in EAX after XBEGIN. When the software does a number of
   transaction retries, it should never retry for a 0 status value, but go
   to the nontransactional fall back path immediately.

Thanks,
Pawan

[*] TAA document: section -> Implications on Intel TSX software
     https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/intel-tsx-asynchronous-abort.html