linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] kvm: implement atomic memslot updates

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: <9b809d54-e7f5-5b6a-9586-2248336dbd9b@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 10:24:27 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito <eesposit@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        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,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] kvm: implement atomic memslot updates

On 29.09.22 10:05, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 28/09/2022 um 22:41 schrieb Sean Christopherson:
>> On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 9/28/22 17:58, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> I don't disagree that the memslots API is lacking, but IMO that is somewhat
>>>> orthogonal to fixing KVM x86's "code fetch to MMIO" mess.  Such a massive new API
>>>> should be viewed and prioritized as a new feature, not as a bug fix, e.g. I'd
>>>> like to have the luxury of being able to explore ideas beyond "let userspace
>>>> batch memslot updates", and I really don't want to feel pressured to get this
>>>> code reviewed and merge.
>>>
>>> I absolutely agree that this is not a bugfix.  Most new features for KVM can
>>> be seen as bug fixes if you squint hard enough, but they're still features.
>>
>> I guess I'm complaining that there isn't sufficient justification for this new
>> feature.  The cover letter provides a bug that would be fixed by having batched
>> updates, but as above, that's really due to deficiencies in a different KVM ABI.
>>
>> Beyond that, there's no explanation of why this exact API is necessary, i.e. there
>> are no requirements given.
>>
>>    - Why can't this be solved in userspace?
> 
> Because this would provide the "feature" only to QEMU, leaving each
> other hypervisor to implement its own.
> 
> In addition (maybe you already answered this question but I couldn't
> find an answer in the email thread), does it make sense to stop all
> vcpus for a couple of memslot update? What if we have 100 cpus?
> 
>>
>>    - Is performance a concern?  I.e. are updates that need to be batched going to
>>      be high frequency operations?
> 
> Currently they are limited to run only at boot. In an unmodified
> KVM/QEMU build, however, I count 86 memslot updates done at boot with
> 
> ./qemu-system-x86_64 --overcommit cpu-pm=on --smp $v --accel kvm
> --display none

I *think* there are only ~3 problematic ones (split/resize), where we 
temporarily delete something we will re-add. At least that's what I 
remember from working on my prototype.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb