linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: x86/tsc: Don't sync user changes to TSC with KVM-initiated change

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: <b83a52bf72b951e69d3df23fff144899b0d6c11d.camel@infradead.org>
Date:   Wed, 13 Sep 2023 17:05:53 +0200
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] KVM: x86/tsc: Don't sync user changes to TSC with
 KVM-initiated change

On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 07:50 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Userspace used to be able to force a sync by writing zero. You are
> > removing that from the ABI without any explanation about why;
> 
> No, my suggestion did not remove that from the ABI.  A @user_value of '0' would
> still force synchronization.

Ah, OK. Yes, you're right. Thanks.

> It's necessary for "user_set_tsc" to be an accurate name.  The code in v6 yields
> "user_set_tsc_to_non_zero_value".  And I don't think it's just a naming issue,

In another thread, you said that the sync code doesn't differentiate
between userspace initializing the TSC And userspace attempting to
synchronize the TSC. I responded that *I* don't differentiate the two
and couldn't see the difference.

I think we were both wrong. Userspace does *explicitly* synchronize the
TSC by writing zero, and the sync code *does* explicitly handle that,
yes?

And the reason I mention it here is that we could perhaps reasonable
say that userspace *syncing* the TSC like that is not the same as
userspace *setting* the TSC, and that it's OK for user_set_tsc to
remain false? It saves adding another argument to kvm_synchronize_tsc()
making it even more complex for a use case that just doesn't make sense
anyway...

> e.g. if userspace writes '0' immediately after creating, and then later writes a
> small delta, the v6 code wouldn't trigger synchronization because "user_set_tsc"
> would be left unseft by the write of '0'.

True, but that's the existing behaviour, and it doesn't make much sense
for the user to write 0 to trigger a sync immediately after creating,
because the *kernel* does that anyway.

I don't feel particularly strongly. Having a commit message and code
comments which clearly set out the reasoning for the 1-second slop and
the reasons why we want to *stop* doing it in this case, is the
important part. That had got lost.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)