linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v4 07/13] perf/x86: Add constraint for guest perf metrics event

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: <ZRrF38RGllA04R8o@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Oct 2023 15:30:07 +0200
From:   Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Xiong <xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>,
        Lv Zhiyuan <zhiyuan.lv@...el.com>,
        Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        David Dunn <daviddunn@...gle.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Patch v4 07/13] perf/x86: Add constraint for guest perf metrics
 event


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 03:46:55PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 
> > > I will firmly reject anything that takes the PMU away from the host
> > > entirely through.
> > 
> > Why?  What is so wrong with supporting use cases where the platform owner *wants*
> > to give up host PMU and NMI watchdog functionality?  If disabling host PMU usage
> > were complex, highly invasive, and/or difficult to maintain, then I can understand
> > the pushback.  
> 
> Because it sucks.
> 
> You're forcing people to choose between no host PMU or a slow guest PMU.
> And that's simply not a sane choice for most people -- worse it's not a
> choice based in technical reality.
> 
> It's a choice out of lazyness, disabling host PMU is not a requirement
> for pass-through. 

Not just a choice of laziness, but it will clearly be forced upon users
by external entities:

   "Pass ownership of the PMU to the guest and have no host PMU, or you
    won't have sane guest PMU support at all. If you disagree, please open
    a support ticket, which we'll ignore."

The host OS shouldn't offer facilities that severely limit its own capabilities,
when there's a better solution. We don't give the FPU to apps exclusively either,
it would be insanely stupid for a platform to do that.

Thanks,

	Ingo