| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <0a7cada4844181d50b7ca971af5d8a4731171336.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2022 12:30:50 +0300
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@...zon.de>,
Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 05/38] KVM: x86: hyper-v: Handle
HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST{,EX} calls gently
On Mon, 2022-06-06 at 10:36 +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Currently, HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_LIST{,EX} calls are handled
> the exact same way as HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACE{,EX}: by
> flushing the whole VPID and this is sub-optimal. Switch to handling
> these requests with 'flush_tlb_gva()' hooks instead. Use the newly
> introduced TLB flush fifo to queue the requests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index 762b0b699fdf..956072592e2f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -1806,32 +1806,82 @@ static u64 kvm_get_sparse_vp_set(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc,
> sparse_banks, consumed_xmm_halves, offset);
> }
>
> -static void hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static int kvm_hv_get_tlb_flush_entries(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc, u64 entries[],
> + int consumed_xmm_halves, gpa_t offset)
> +{
> + return kvm_hv_get_hc_data(kvm, hc, hc->rep_cnt, hc->rep_cnt,
> + entries, consumed_xmm_halves, offset);
> +}
> +
> +static void hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *entries, int count)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu_hv_tlb_flush_fifo *tlb_flush_fifo;
> struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu = to_hv_vcpu(vcpu);
> u64 entry = KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSHALL_ENTRY;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> if (!hv_vcpu)
> return;
>
> tlb_flush_fifo = &hv_vcpu->tlb_flush_fifo;
>
> - kfifo_in_spinlocked(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries, &entry, 1, &tlb_flush_fifo->write_lock);
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tlb_flush_fifo->write_lock, flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * All entries should fit on the fifo leaving one free for 'flush all'
> + * entry in case another request comes in. In case there's not enough
> + * space, just put 'flush all' entry there.
> + */
> + if (count && entries && count < kfifo_avail(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries)) {
> + WARN_ON(kfifo_in(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries, entries, count) != count);
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Note: full fifo always contains 'flush all' entry, no need to check the
> + * return value.
> + */
> + kfifo_in(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries, &entry, 1);
Very tiny nitpick: maybe call this flush_all_entry instead,
just so that it is a tiny bit easier to notice.
> +
> +out_unlock:
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tlb_flush_fifo->write_lock, flags);
> }
>
> void kvm_hv_vcpu_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> struct kvm_vcpu_hv_tlb_flush_fifo *tlb_flush_fifo;
> struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu = to_hv_vcpu(vcpu);
> + u64 entries[KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSH_FIFO_SIZE];
> + int i, j, count;
> + gva_t gva;
>
> - kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_guest(vcpu);
> -
> - if (!hv_vcpu)
> + if (!tdp_enabled || !hv_vcpu) {
I haven't noticed that in the review I did back then, but
any reason why !tdp_enabled? Just curious.
> + kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_guest(vcpu);
> return;
> + }
>
> tlb_flush_fifo = &hv_vcpu->tlb_flush_fifo;
>
> + count = kfifo_out(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries, entries, KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSH_FIFO_SIZE);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> + if (entries[i] == KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSHALL_ENTRY)
> + goto out_flush_all;
> +
> + /*
> + * Lower 12 bits of 'address' encode the number of additional
> + * pages to flush.
> + */
> + gva = entries[i] & PAGE_MASK;
> + for (j = 0; j < (entries[i] & ~PAGE_MASK) + 1; j++)
> + static_call(kvm_x86_flush_tlb_gva)(vcpu, gva + j * PAGE_SIZE);
> +
> + ++vcpu->stat.tlb_flush;
> + }
> + return;
> +
> +out_flush_all:
> + kvm_vcpu_flush_tlb_guest(vcpu);
> kfifo_reset_out(&tlb_flush_fifo->entries);
> }
>
> @@ -1841,11 +1891,21 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> struct hv_tlb_flush_ex flush_ex;
> struct hv_tlb_flush flush;
> DECLARE_BITMAP(vcpu_mask, KVM_MAX_VCPUS);
> + /*
> + * Normally, there can be no more than 'KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSH_FIFO_SIZE'
> + * entries on the TLB flush fifo. The last entry, however, needs to be
> + * always left free for 'flush all' entry which gets placed when
> + * there is not enough space to put all the requested entries.
> + */
> + u64 __tlb_flush_entries[KVM_HV_TLB_FLUSH_FIFO_SIZE - 1];
> + u64 *tlb_flush_entries;
> u64 valid_bank_mask;
> u64 sparse_banks[KVM_HV_MAX_SPARSE_VCPU_SET_BITS];
> struct kvm_vcpu *v;
> unsigned long i;
> bool all_cpus;
> + int consumed_xmm_halves = 0;
> + gpa_t data_offset;
>
> /*
> * The Hyper-V TLFS doesn't allow more than 64 sparse banks, e.g. the
> @@ -1861,10 +1921,12 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> flush.address_space = hc->ingpa;
> flush.flags = hc->outgpa;
> flush.processor_mask = sse128_lo(hc->xmm[0]);
> + consumed_xmm_halves = 1;
> } else {
> if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa,
> &flush, sizeof(flush))))
> return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> + data_offset = sizeof(flush);
> }
>
> trace_kvm_hv_flush_tlb(flush.processor_mask,
> @@ -1888,10 +1950,12 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> flush_ex.flags = hc->outgpa;
> memcpy(&flush_ex.hv_vp_set,
> &hc->xmm[0], sizeof(hc->xmm[0]));
> + consumed_xmm_halves = 2;
> } else {
> if (unlikely(kvm_read_guest(kvm, hc->ingpa, &flush_ex,
> sizeof(flush_ex))))
> return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> + data_offset = sizeof(flush_ex);
> }
>
> trace_kvm_hv_flush_tlb_ex(flush_ex.hv_vp_set.valid_bank_mask,
> @@ -1907,25 +1971,37 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
>
> if (all_cpus)
> - goto do_flush;
> + goto read_flush_entries;
>
> if (!hc->var_cnt)
> goto ret_success;
>
> - if (kvm_get_sparse_vp_set(kvm, hc, sparse_banks, 2,
> - offsetof(struct hv_tlb_flush_ex,
> - hv_vp_set.bank_contents)))
> + if (kvm_get_sparse_vp_set(kvm, hc, sparse_banks, consumed_xmm_halves,
> + data_offset))
> + return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> + data_offset += hc->var_cnt * sizeof(sparse_banks[0]);
> + consumed_xmm_halves += hc->var_cnt;
> + }
> +
> +read_flush_entries:
> + if (hc->code == HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACE ||
> + hc->code == HVCALL_FLUSH_VIRTUAL_ADDRESS_SPACE_EX ||
> + hc->rep_cnt > ARRAY_SIZE(__tlb_flush_entries)) {
> + tlb_flush_entries = NULL;
> + } else {
> + if (kvm_hv_get_tlb_flush_entries(kvm, hc, __tlb_flush_entries,
> + consumed_xmm_halves, data_offset))
> return HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_INPUT;
> + tlb_flush_entries = __tlb_flush_entries;
> }
>
> -do_flush:
> /*
> * vcpu->arch.cr3 may not be up-to-date for running vCPUs so we can't
> * analyze it here, flush TLB regardless of the specified address space.
> */
> if (all_cpus) {
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, v, kvm)
> - hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(v);
> + hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(v, tlb_flush_entries, hc->rep_cnt);
>
> kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH);
> } else {
> @@ -1935,7 +2011,7 @@ static u64 kvm_hv_flush_tlb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_hv_hcall *hc)
> v = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, i);
> if (!v)
> continue;
> - hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(v);
> + hv_tlb_flush_enqueue(v, tlb_flush_entries, hc->rep_cnt);
> }
>
> kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(kvm, KVM_REQ_HV_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu_mask);
Besides the nitpick, dont see anything wrong, but I might have missed something.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
Powered by blists - more mailing lists