Message-ID: <658D3EF0-B2D3-4492-A2A1-FC84A58B201D@nutanix.com>
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 18:36:25 +0000
From:   Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
CC:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        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" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: VMX: do not disable interception for
 MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL on eIBRS



> On May 31, 2023, at 2:30 PM, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 11:17 AM Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 31, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:22 AM Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 5/31/23 13:13, Jon Kohler wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On May 31, 2023, at 1:02 PM, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 5/31/23 10:41, Jon Kohler wrote:
>>>>>>> Avoid expensive rdmsr on every VM Exit for MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL on
>>>>>>> eIBRS enabled systems iff the guest only sets IA32_SPEC_CTRL[0] (IBRS)
>>>>>>> and not [1] (STIBP) or [2] (SSBD) by not disabling interception in
>>>>>>> the MSR bitmap. Note: this logic is only for eIBRS, as Intel's guidance
>>>>>>> has long been that eIBRS only needs to be set once, so most guests with
>>>>>>> eIBRS awareness should behave nicely. We would not want to accidentally
>>>>>>> regress misbehaving guests on pre-eIBRS systems, who might be spamming
>>>>>>> IBRS MSR without the hypervisor being able to see it today.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> eIBRS enabled guests using just IBRS will only write SPEC_CTRL MSR
>>>>>>> once or twice per vCPU on boot, so it is far better to take those
>>>>>>> VM exits on boot than having to read and save this msr on every
>>>>>>> single VM exit forever. This outcome was suggested on Andrea's commit
>>>>>>> 2f46993d83ff ("x86: change default to spec_store_bypass_disable=prctl spectre_v2_user=prctl")
>>>>>>> however, since interception is still unilaterally disabled, the rdmsr
>>>>>>> tax is still there even after that commit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This is a significant win for eIBRS enabled systems as this rdmsr
>>>>>>> accounts for roughly ~50% of time for vmx_vcpu_run() as observed
>>>>>>> by perf top disassembly, and is in the critical path for all
>>>>>>> VM-Exits, including fastpath exits.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Opportunistically update comments for both MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL and
>>>>>>> MSR_IA32_PRED_CMD to make it clear how L1 vs L2 handling works.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Fixes: 2f46993d83ff ("x86: change default to spec_store_bypass_disable=prctl spectre_v2_user=prctl")
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Kohler <jon@...anix.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
>>>>>>> Cc: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> v1
>>>>>>> - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_all_20220512174427.3608-2D1-2Djon-40nutanix.com_&d=DwICaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=NGPRGGo37mQiSXgHKm5rCQ&m=PT1QjB8Lk_a3baDOwHBfedQG67HsVDmOdmcWHlr5PrT8WyuS9e6PfHF5JxLxD0zw&s=jNnloZQgh0KG-n36uwVC0dJTmokvqsQdYQCWYI8hVvM&e= v1 -> v2:
>>>>>>> - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_all_20220520195303.58692-2D1-2Djon-40nutanix.com_&d=DwICaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=NGPRGGo37mQiSXgHKm5rCQ&m=PT1QjB8Lk_a3baDOwHBfedQG67HsVDmOdmcWHlr5PrT8WyuS9e6PfHF5JxLxD0zw&s=Rwi5NoHwaezlmzzLiGGCuI6QHuGQZ1BVK2hs6-SZvzU&e=   - Addressed comments on approach from Sean.
>>>>>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>>>>> - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lore.kernel.org_kvm_20220520204115.67580-2D1-2Djon-40nutanix.com_&d=DwICaQ&c=s883GpUCOChKOHiocYtGcg&r=NGPRGGo37mQiSXgHKm5rCQ&m=PT1QjB8Lk_a3baDOwHBfedQG67HsVDmOdmcWHlr5PrT8WyuS9e6PfHF5JxLxD0zw&s=R2Ykxdv-DyeVGLWd8_pLpu43zEsnWzpyvvBPEZ9lz-Y&e=   - Addressed comments on approach from Sean.
>>>>>>> v3 -> v4:
>>>>>>> - Fixed inline code comments from Sean.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>>>> index 44fb619803b8..5e643ac897bc 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>>>> @@ -2260,20 +2260,33 @@ static int vmx_set_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct msr_data *msr_info)
>>>>>>>                   return 1;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           vmx->spec_ctrl = data;
>>>>>>> -           if (!data)
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +           /*
>>>>>>> +            * Disable interception on the first non-zero write, except if
>>>>>>> +            * eIBRS is advertised to the guest and the guest is enabling
>>>>>>> +            * _only_ IBRS.  On eIBRS systems, kernels typically set IBRS
>>>>>>> +            * once at boot and never touch it post-boot.  All other bits,
>>>>>>> +            * and IBRS on non-eIBRS systems, are often set on a per-task
>>>>>>> +            * basis, i.e. change frequently, so the benefit of avoiding
>>>>>>> +            * VM-exits during guest context switches outweighs the cost of
>>>>>>> +            * RDMSR on every VM-Exit to save the guest's value.
>>>>>>> +            */
>>>>>>> +           if (!data ||
>>>>>>> +               (data == SPEC_CTRL_IBRS &&
>>>>>>> +                (vcpu->arch.arch_capabilities & ARCH_CAP_IBRS_ALL)))
>>>>>>>                   break;
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           /*
>>>>>>> -            * For non-nested:
>>>>>>> -            * When it's written (to non-zero) for the first time, pass
>>>>>>> -            * it through.
>>>>>>> -            *
>>>>>>> -            * For nested:
>>>>>>> -            * The handling of the MSR bitmap for L2 guests is done in
>>>>>>> -            * nested_vmx_prepare_msr_bitmap. We should not touch the
>>>>>>> -            * vmcs02.msr_bitmap here since it gets completely overwritten
>>>>>>> -            * in the merging. We update the vmcs01 here for L1 as well
>>>>>>> -            * since it will end up touching the MSR anyway now.
>>>>>>> +            * Update vmcs01.msr_bitmap even if L2 is active, i.e. disable
>>>>>>> +            * interception for the vCPU on the first write regardless of
>>>>>>> +            * whether the WRMSR came from L1 or L2.  vmcs02's bitmap is a
>>>>>>> +            * combination of vmcs01 and vmcs12 bitmaps, and will be
>>>>>>> +            * recomputed by nested_vmx_prepare_msr_bitmap() on the next
>>>>>>> +            * nested VM-Enter.  Note, this does mean that future WRMSRs
>>>>>>> +            * from L2 will be intercepted until the next nested VM-Exit if
>>>>>>> +            * L2 was the first to write, but L1 exposing the MSR to L2
>>>>>>> +            * without first writing it is unlikely and not worth the
>>>>>>> +            * extra bit of complexity.
>>>>>>>            */
>>>>>>>           vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu,
>>>>>>>                                         MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL,
>>>>>> I have 2 comments.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1) Besides the IBRS, STIBP & SSBD bits, the SPEC_CTRL MSR may have the RRSBA_DIS_S bit set in the future. I am not aware of any current Intel processors having this capability yet, but a future Intel processor may have this and the above patch will have to be modified accordingly. It looks like that the RRSBA_DIS_S bit will be set once.
>>>>> Agreed. Once that becomes pubic with future processors, this code can be fixed up in a fairly trivial manner. I don’t have any access to said future processors, so I’d like to keep it as-is today rather than project it out too far. Is that ok?
>>>> That is certainly OK. I am just raising a question here.
>>> 
>>> How difficult would it be to do a back of the envelope cost/benefit
>>> analysis, rather than relying on heuristics based on today's typical
>>> guest behavior?
>>> 
>>> Say that it's a minimum of 1000 cycles to intercept this WRMSR. The
>>> tradeoff is the cost of a RDMSR on every VM-exit. How long does a
>>> RDMSR take these days? On the order of 50 cycles? So, if the guest
>>> consistently writes IA32_SPEC_CTRL more often than once every 20
>>> VM-exits, it's better not to intercept it.
>>> 
>>> Most of the bookkeeping could be handled in the WRMSR(IA32_SPEC_CTRL)
>>> intercept. The only overhead we'd incur on every VM-exit would be the
>>> cost of incrementing a VM-exit counter.
>>> 
>>> It's a bit more complicated, but it directly addresses the issue, and
>>> it's more future-proof.
>> 
>> Yea, I thought about it. One one hand, simplicity is king and on the other
>> hand, not having to think about this again is nice too.
>> 
>> The challenge in my mind is that on setups where this truly is static, we’d
>> be taking some incremental amount of memory to keep the counter around,
>> just to have the same outcome each time. Doesn’t feel right (to me) unless that is
>> also used for “other” stuff as some sort of general purpose/common counter.
> 
> If you're feeling mean, there's plenty of wasted space where you could
> put the counter. For instance, we still allocate an entire page for
> every VMCS, don't we?

That starts to trend into a “why do we have all this wasted space” discussion
real quick. Yes, there is places this could be stuffed I’m sure. Still feels a bit
heavy handed for the same-outcome-every-time situations though.

> 
>> RE Cost: I can’t put my finger on it, but I swear that RDMSR for *this*
>> specific MSR is more expensive than any other RDMSR I’ve come across
>> for run-of-the-mill random MSRs. I flipped thru the SDM and the mitigations
>> documentation, and it only ever mentions that there is a notable cost to
>> do WRMSR IA32_SPEC_CTRL, but nothing about the RDMSR side.
>> 
>> If anyone happens to know from an Intel-internals perspective, I’d be quite
>> interested to know why it just “feels” so darn costly. i.e. is the proc also doing
>> special things under the covers, similar to what the processor does on
>> writes to this one?
> 
> What do you mean by "feels"? Have you measured it?

There are plenty of rdmsr’s scattered around the entry and exit paths that get
hit every time, but this is far and away always the most expensive one when
profiling with perf top. I haven’t measured it separately from the existing code,
But rather noted during profiling that it appears to be nastier than others. 

I’m more curious than anything else, but it doesn’t matter all that much going
forward since this commit will nuke it from orbit for the run of the mill 
eIBRS-only use cases.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists