| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <fbcbbf94-2050-5243-664a-b65b9529070c@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 19:29:44 +0800
From: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] KVM: x86/tsc: Don't sync user-written TSC against
startup values
On 14/9/2023 3:31 pm, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-09-14 at 11:50 +0800, Like Xu wrote:
>> On 13/9/2023 10:47 pm, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, Like Xu wrote:
>>>> I'll wait for a cooling off period to see if the maintainers need me to post v7.
>>>
>>> You should have waiting to post v5, let alone v6. Resurrecting a thread after a
>>> month and not waiting even 7 hours for others to respond is extremely frustrating.
>>
>> You are right. I don't seem to be keeping up with many of other issues. Sorry
>> for that.
>> Wish there were 48 hours in a day.
>>
>> Back to this issue: for commit message, I'd be more inclined to David's
>> understanding,
>
> The discussion that Sean and I had should probably be reflected in the
> commit message too. To the end of the commit log you used for v6, after
> the final 'To that end:…' paragraph, let's add:
>
> Note that userspace can explicitly request a *synchronization* of the
> TSC by writing zero. For the purpose of this patch, this counts as
> "setting" the TSC. If userspace then subsequently writes an explicit
> non-zero value which happens to be within 1 second of the previous
> value, it will be 'corrected'. For that case, this preserves the prior
> behaviour of KVM (which always applied the 1-second 'correction'
> regardless of user vs. kernel).
>
>> @@ -2728,27 +2729,45 @@ static void kvm_synchronize_tsc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> u64 data)
>> elapsed = ns - kvm->arch.last_tsc_nsec;
>>
>> if (vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz) {
>> + /*
>> + * Force synchronization when creating or hotplugging a vCPU,
>> + * i.e. when the TSC value is '0', to help keep clocks stable.
>> + * If this is NOT a hotplug/creation case, skip synchronization
>> + * on the first write from userspace so as not to misconstrue
>> + * state restoration after live migration as an attempt from
>> + * userspace to synchronize.
>> + */
>
> You cannot *misconstrue* an attempt from userspace to synchronize. If
> userspace writes a zero, it's a sync attempt. If it's non-zero it's a
> TSC value to be set. It's not very subtle :)
>
> I think the 1-second slop thing is sufficiently documented in the 'else
> if' clause below, so I started writing an alternative 'overall' comment
> to go here and found it a bit redundant. So maybe let's just drop this
> comment and add one back in the if (data == 0) case...
>
>> if (data == 0) {
>> - /*
>> - * detection of vcpu initialization -- need to sync
>> - * with other vCPUs. This particularly helps to keep
>> - * kvm_clock stable after CPU hotplug
>> - */
>
>
> /*
> * Force synchronization when creating a vCPU, or when
> * userspace explicitly writes a zero value.
> */
>
>> synchronizing = true;
>> - } else {
>> + } else if (kvm->arch.user_set_tsc) {
>> u64 tsc_exp = kvm->arch.last_tsc_write +
>> nsec_to_cycles(vcpu, elapsed);
>> u64 tsc_hz = vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz * 1000LL;
>> /*
>> - * Special case: TSC write with a small delta (1 second)
>> - * of virtual cycle time against real time is
>> - * interpreted as an attempt to synchronize the CPU.
>> + * Here lies UAPI baggage: when a user-initiated TSC write has
>> + * a small delta (1 second) of virtual cycle time against the
>> + * previously set vCPU, we assume that they were intended to be
>> + * in sync and the delta was only due to the racy nature of the
>> + * legacy API.
>> + *
>> + * This trick falls down when restoring a guest which genuinely
>> + * has been running for less time than the 1 second of imprecision
>> + * which we allow for in the legacy API. In this case, the first
>> + * value written by userspace (on any vCPU) should not be subject
>> + * to this 'correction' to make it sync up with values that only
>
> Missing the word 'come' here too, in '…that only *come* from…',
>
>> + * from the kernel's default vCPU creation. Make the 1-second slop
>> + * hack only trigger if the user_set_tsc flag is already set.
>> + *
>> + * The correct answer is for the VMM not to use the legacy API.
>
> Maybe we should drop this line, as we don't actually have a sane API
> yet that VMMs can use instead.
>
Thanks for your comments, but not sure if Sean has any more concerns to move
forward:
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 1a4def36d5bb..9a7dfef9d32d 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -1324,6 +1324,7 @@ struct kvm_arch {
int nr_vcpus_matched_tsc;
u32 default_tsc_khz;
+ bool user_set_tsc;
seqcount_raw_spinlock_t pvclock_sc;
bool use_master_clock;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 6c9c81e82e65..11fbd2a4a370 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -2714,8 +2714,9 @@ static void __kvm_synchronize_tsc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
u64 offset, u64 tsc,
kvm_track_tsc_matching(vcpu);
}
-static void kvm_synchronize_tsc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 data)
+static void kvm_synchronize_tsc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *user_value)
{
+ u64 data = user_value ? *user_value : 0;
struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
u64 offset, ns, elapsed;
unsigned long flags;
@@ -2730,25 +2731,37 @@ static void kvm_synchronize_tsc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
u64 data)
if (vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz) {
if (data == 0) {
/*
- * detection of vcpu initialization -- need to sync
- * with other vCPUs. This particularly helps to keep
- * kvm_clock stable after CPU hotplug
+ * Force synchronization when creating a vCPU, or when
+ * userspace explicitly writes a zero value.
*/
synchronizing = true;
- } else {
+ } else if (kvm->arch.user_set_tsc) {
u64 tsc_exp = kvm->arch.last_tsc_write +
nsec_to_cycles(vcpu, elapsed);
u64 tsc_hz = vcpu->arch.virtual_tsc_khz * 1000LL;
/*
- * Special case: TSC write with a small delta (1 second)
- * of virtual cycle time against real time is
- * interpreted as an attempt to synchronize the CPU.
+ * Here lies UAPI baggage: when a user-initiated TSC write has
+ * a small delta (1 second) of virtual cycle time against the
+ * previously set vCPU, we assume that they were intended to be
+ * in sync and the delta was only due to the racy nature of the
+ * legacy API.
+ *
+ * This trick falls down when restoring a guest which genuinely
+ * has been running for less time than the 1 second of imprecision
+ * which we allow for in the legacy API. In this case, the first
+ * value written by userspace (on any vCPU) should not be subject
+ * to this 'correction' to make it sync up with values that only
+ * come from the kernel's default vCPU creation. Make the 1-second
+ * slop hack only trigger if the user_set_tsc flag is already set.
*/
synchronizing = data < tsc_exp + tsc_hz &&
data + tsc_hz > tsc_exp;
}
}
+ if (user_value)
+ kvm->arch.user_set_tsc = true;
+
/*
* For a reliable TSC, we can match TSC offsets, and for an unstable
* TSC, we add elapsed time in this computation. We could let the
@@ -3777,7 +3790,7 @@ int kvm_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
msr_data *msr_info)
break;
case MSR_IA32_TSC:
if (msr_info->host_initiated) {
- kvm_synchronize_tsc(vcpu, data);
+ kvm_synchronize_tsc(vcpu, &data);
} else {
u64 adj = kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(vcpu, data) - vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_offset;
adjust_tsc_offset_guest(vcpu, adj);
@@ -5536,6 +5549,7 @@ static int kvm_arch_tsc_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
tsc = kvm_scale_tsc(rdtsc(), vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_scaling_ratio) + offset;
ns = get_kvmclock_base_ns();
+ kvm->arch.user_set_tsc = true;
__kvm_synchronize_tsc(vcpu, offset, tsc, ns, matched);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&kvm->arch.tsc_write_lock, flags);
@@ -11959,7 +11973,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_postcreate(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
if (mutex_lock_killable(&vcpu->mutex))
return;
vcpu_load(vcpu);
- kvm_synchronize_tsc(vcpu, 0);
+ kvm_synchronize_tsc(vcpu, NULL);
vcpu_put(vcpu);
/* poll control enabled by default */
Powered by blists - more mailing lists