linux-kernel - Re: ...\n

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: <b9238c07-68a7-31fa-c654-d8111a1e2d4b@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 10:59:17 +0200
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        "Durrant, Paul" <pdurrant@...zon.co.uk>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Allister, Jack" <jalliste@...zon.com>
Cc:     "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "diapop@...zon.co.uk" <diapop@...zon.co.uk>,
        "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        "joro@...tes.org" <joro@...tes.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "metikaya@...zon.co.uk" <metikaya@...zon.co.uk>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "rkrcmar@...hat.com" <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
        "sean.j.christopherson@...el.com" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "wanpengli@...cent.com" <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: ...\n

On 6/1/22 09:57, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> I'll bite... What's ludicrous about wanting to run a guest at a lower CPU freq to minimize observable change in whatever workload it is running?
>> Well, the right API is cpufreq, there's no need to make it a KVM
>> functionality.
> KVM may probably use the cpufreq API to run each vCPU at the desired
> frequency: I don't quite see how this can be done with a VMM today when
> it's not a 1-vCPU-per-1-pCPU setup.

True, but then there's also a policy issue, in that KVM shouldn't be 
allowed to *bump* the frequency if userspace would ordinarily not have 
access to the cpufreq files in sysfs.

All in all, I think it's simpler to let privileged userspace (which 
knows when it has a 1:1 mapping of vCPU to pCPU) handle it with cpufreq.

Paolo