linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 01/24] LoongArch: KVM: Implement kvm module related interface

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]

Date:   Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:27:50 +0800
From:   Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>
To:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Alex Deucher <alexander.deucher@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 01/24] LoongArch: KVM: Implement kvm module related
 interface



在 2023年02月17日 03:34, Oliver Upton 写道:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 09:00:50PM +0800, Tianrui Zhao wrote:
>> 在 2023年02月14日 17:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman 写道:
>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 05:00:56PM +0800, Tianrui Zhao wrote:
>>>>>> +#define KVM_GET_CSRS		_IOWR(KVMIO, 0xc5, struct kvm_csrs)
>>>>>> +#define KVM_SET_CSRS		_IOW(KVMIO,  0xc6, struct kvm_csrs)
>>>>> Why does this arch need new ioctls?
>>>> We want to use this ioctl to access multiple csrs at one time. If without
>>>> this, we only access one csr.
>>> What is wrong with accessing only one csr at a time?  Isn't this what
>>> other architectures do?
>> Generally, using KVM_GET_ONE_GET ioctl to get one reg, but we want a
>> more convenient interface to get serial regs at one time, so we add this
>> ioctl.
> Have you found register accesses through the KVM_{GET,SET}_ONE_REG
> ioctls to actually be a bounding issue? I'd be surprised if that were
> actually the case.
>
> An architecture-neutral implementation was entertained a few years ago
> [*], but even then it saved an inconsequential amount of time relative
> to the rest of VM serialization (at least for arm64). The one thing that
> series got right was to share the plumbing across all architectures that
> use the ONE_REG interface (i.e. everyone but x86).
>
> If you have data that supports the thesis that a batched ioctl is
> useful then please do share. But in any case this should not use an ioctl
> tied down to a single architecture.
>
> [*] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20201120125616.14436-1-darkhan@amazon.com/
>

Thanks for your explanation, and we have decided to remove this ioctls.

thanks,
Tianrui Zhao