linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Only save S1PIE registers when dirty

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]

Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 21:13:26 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Only save S1PIE registers when dirty

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 07:32:28PM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:05:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I don't have a good sense if this is a good idea or not, or if this is a
> > desirable implementation of the concept - the patch is based on some
> > concerns about the cost of the system register context switching.  We
> > should be able to do something similar for some of the other registers.

> Is there any data beyond a microbenchmark to suggest save elision
> benefits the VM at all? The idea of baking the trap configuration based
> on what KVM _thinks_ the guest will do isn't particularly exciting. This
> doesn't seem to be a one-size-fits-all solution.

No, and as I said above I'm really not confident about this.  There's no
hardware with these registers yet as far as I know so I don't know how
meaningful any benchmark would be anyway, and as you suggest even with a
benchmark a new guest could always come along and blow performance up
with a change in access patterns.

> The overheads of guest exits are extremely configuration dependent, and
> on VHE the save/restore of EL1 state happens at vcpu_load() / vcpu_put()
> rather than every exit. There isn't a whole lot KVM can do to lessen the
> blow of sharing EL1 in the nVHE configuration.

> Looking a bit further out, the cost of traps will be dramatically higher
> when running as a guest hypervisor, so we'd want to avoid them if
> possible...

Indeed, but OTOH I got some complaints about adding more system register
switching in __sysreg_save_el1_state() for one of my other serieses that
specifically mentioned nested virt and there don't seem to be a huge
range of other options for reducing what we're doing with context
switching without using traps to figure out what's in use, especially in
the nVHE case.  I figured I'd send the patch so the idea could be
considered.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)