linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stop/resume host PT before/after VM entry when PT_MODE_HOST

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 26 Aug 2022 15:08:28 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Stop/resume host PT before/after VM
 entry when PT_MODE_HOST_GUEST

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 8/25/2022 11:59 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > But ensuring the RTIT_CTL.TraceEn=0 is all that's needed to make VM-Entry happy,
> > and if the host isn't using Intel PT, what do we care if other bits that, for all
> > intents and purposes are ignored, are lost across VM-Entry/VM-Exit?  I gotta
> > imaging the perf will fully initialize RTIT_CTL if it starts using PT.
> 
> Personally, I agree with it.
> 
> But I'm not sure if there is a criteria that host context needs to be
> unchanged after being virtualized.
> 
> > Actually, if the host isn't actively using Intel PT, can KVM avoid saving the
> > other RTIT MSRs?
> 
> I don't think it's a good idea that it requires PT driver never and won't
> rely on the previous value of PT MSRs. But it's OK if handing it over to
> perf as the idea you gave below.

Yep, my thought exactly.

> > Even better, can we hand that off to perf?  I really dislike KVM making assumptions
> > about perf's internal behavior.  E.g. can this be made to look like
> 
> you mean let perf subsystem to do the context save/restore staff of host and
> KVM focuses on save/restore of guest context, right?

Yep!  KVM already more or less does this for "regular" PMU MSRs, though in that
case perf hands back a list of MSRs+data.  But for Intel PT I don't see any point
in having KVM do the actual MSR accesses.  Tracing has to be turned off _before_
VM-Enter, so using the MSR load/save lists doesn't buy us anything. 
 
> I would like to see comment from perf folks on this and maybe need their
> help on how to implement.