linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2] KVM: arm/arm64: optimize vSGI injection performance

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87h6nz4k3o.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:06:03 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To:     zhaoxu <zhaoxu.35@...edance.com>
Cc:     oliver.upton@...ux.dev, james.morse@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        zhouyibo@...edance.com, zhouliang.001@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] KVM: arm/arm64: optimize vSGI injection performance

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 05:13:19 +0100,
zhaoxu <zhaoxu.35@...edance.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2023/9/4 17:57, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 02:58:11 +0100,
> > Xu Zhao <zhaoxu.35@...edance.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >> -	unsigned long affinity;
> >> -	int level0;
> >> +	u64 aff;
> >>   -	/*
> >> -	 * Split the current VCPU's MPIDR into affinity level 0 and the
> >> -	 * rest as this is what we have to compare against.
> >> -	 */
> >> -	affinity = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
> >> -	level0 = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(affinity, 0);
> >> -	affinity &= ~MPIDR_LEVEL_MASK;
> >> +	/* aff3 - aff1 */
> >> +	aff = (((reg) & ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_3_MASK) >> ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_3_SHIFT) << 16 |
> >> +		(((reg) & ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_2_MASK) >> ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_2_SHIFT) << 8 |
> >> +		(((reg) & ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_1_MASK) >> ICC_SGI1R_AFFINITY_1_SHIFT);
> > 
> > Here, you assume that you can directly map a vcpu index to an
> > affinity. It would be awesome if that was the case. However, this is
> > only valid at reset time, and userspace is perfectly allowed to change
> > this mapping by writing to the vcpu's MPIDR_EL1.
> > 
> > So this won't work at all if userspace wants to set its own specific
> > CPU numbering.
> > 
> > 	M.
> > 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Yes, i don't think too much about userspace can change MPIDR value, I
> checked the source code of qemu, qemu create vcpu sequentially, so in
> this case, vcpu_id is equivalent to vcpu_idx which means vcpu_id
> represents the position in vcpu array.

The problem is that this is only a convention, and userspace is
totally free to use vcpu_id in a different way. Note that we have
other bugs in the KVM code that treat them interchangeably, but I'm
trying to fix that.

> These days, I'm still thinking about whether it is because of the
> content related to future vcpu hot-plug feature that vcpu_id can be
> modified, but now it seems that's not entirely the case.

There are 3 levels of identification:

- vcpu_idx, which is an internal KVM index that userspace is not
  suppose to rely on (or know)

- vcpu_id, which is provided by userspace as a CPU number, and from
  which we derive the default MPIDR_EL1 value. This is used all over
  the code to identify a CPU from userspace.

- MPIDR_EL1, which is how the architecture identifies a CPU.

For CPU hotplug, I expect usespace to set vcpu_id and MPIDR_EL1 as it
sees fit, knowing that the vpcu must have been allocated upfront (and
vcpu_idx set).

> I have read your latest patch and have been deeply inspired, and
> Thanks for agreeing with this issue.

No worries. I'd appreciate you testing it and reporting whether this
matches the results you are observing with your own patch.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.