linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] KVM: x86: Participate in bitmap-based PTE aging

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZiLc8OfXxc9QWxtg@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 14:06:56 -0700
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
	Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>, Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>,
	Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
	Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
	Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] KVM: x86: Participate in bitmap-based PTE aging

On 2024-04-19 01:47 PM, James Houghton wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:28 AM David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com> wrote:
> > On 2024-04-11 10:08 AM, David Matlack wrote:
> > bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> >         bool young = false;
> >
> >         if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
> >
> >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);
> >
> >         return young;
> > }
> >
> > bool kvm_test_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
> > {
> >         bool young = false;
> >
> >         if (!range->arg.metadata->bitmap && kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm))
> >                 young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_test_age_rmap);
> >
> >         if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
> >                 young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn(kvm, range);
> >
> >         return young;
> 
> 
> Yeah I think this is the right thing to do. Given your other
> suggestions (on patch 3), I think this will look something like this
> -- let me know if I've misunderstood something:
> 
> bool check_rmap = !bitmap && kvm_memslot_have_rmaps(kvm);
> 
> if (check_rmap)
>   KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
> 
> rcu_read_lock(); // perhaps only do this when we don't take the MMU lock?
> 
> if (check_rmap)
>   kvm_handle_gfn_range(/* ... */ kvm_test_age_rmap)
> 
> if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
>   kvm_tdp_mmu_test_age_gfn() // modified to be RCU-safe
> 
> rcu_read_unlock();
> if (check_rmap)
>   KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);

I was thinking a little different. If you follow my suggestion to first
make the TDP MMU aging lockless, you'll end up with something like this
prior to adding bitmap support (note: the comments are just for
demonstrative purposes):

bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
{
        bool young = false;

	/* Shadow MMU aging holds write-lock. */
        if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm)) {
                write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
                young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
                write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
        }

	/* TDM MMU aging is lockless. */
        if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
                young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);

        return young;
}

Then when you add bitmap support it would look something like this:

bool kvm_age_gfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_gfn_range *range)
{
        unsigned long *bitmap = range->arg.metadata->bitmap;
        bool young = false;

	/* SHadow MMU aging holds write-lock and does not support bitmap. */
        if (kvm_memslots_have_rmaps(kvm) && !bitmap) {
                write_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
                young = kvm_handle_gfn_range(kvm, range, kvm_age_rmap);
                write_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
        }

	/* TDM MMU aging is lockless and supports bitmap. */
        if (tdp_mmu_enabled)
                young |= kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range(kvm, range);

        return young;
}

rcu_read_lock/unlock() would be called in kvm_tdp_mmu_age_gfn_range().

That brings up a question I've been wondering about. If KVM only
advertises support for the bitmap lookaround when shadow roots are not
allocated, does that mean MGLRU will be blind to accesses made by L2
when nested virtualization is enabled? And does that mean the Linux MM
will think all L2 memory is cold (i.e. good candidate for swapping)
because it isn't seeing accesses made by L2?