linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/21] KVM: x86: Remove implicit rdtsc() from kvm_compute_l1_tsc

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: <Zr4kNNUUm4E6R5zC@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:52:20 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, 
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, 
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Paul Durrant <paul@....org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>, 
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, 
	Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, 
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, 
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	jalliste@...zon.co.uk, sveith@...zon.de, zide.chen@...el.com, 
	Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>, Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/21] KVM: x86: Remove implicit rdtsc() from kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset()

On Wed, May 22, 2024, David Woodhouse wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> 
> Let the callers pass the host TSC value in as an explicit parameter.
> 
> This leaves some fairly obviously stupid code, which using this function
> to compare the guest TSC at some *other* time, with the newly-minted TSC
> value from rdtsc(). Unless it's being used to measure *elapsed* time,
> that isn't very sensible.
> 
> In this case, "obviously stupid" is an improvement over being non-obviously
> so.
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 14 ++++++++------
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index ef3cd6113037..ea59694d712a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -2601,11 +2601,12 @@ u64 kvm_scale_tsc(u64 tsc, u64 ratio)
>  	return _tsc;
>  }
>  
> -static u64 kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 target_tsc)
> +static u64 kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 host_tsc,
> +				     u64 target_tsc)

Would it make sense to have a __kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset() version that takes
in the host TSC, and then this?

static u64 kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 target_tsc)
{
	return __kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(vcpu, rdtsc(), target_tsc);
}


Hmm, or maybe a better option would be:

static u64 kvm_compute_current_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
					     u64 target_tsc)
{
	return kvm_compute_l1_tsc_offset(vcpu, rdtsc(), target_tsc);
}

Meh, after typing those out, I don't like either one.  Let's keep it how you
wrote it, I think there's quite a bit of added readability by forcing callers to
provide the host TSC.

>  {
>  	u64 tsc;
>  
> -	tsc = kvm_scale_tsc(rdtsc(), vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_scaling_ratio);
> +	tsc = kvm_scale_tsc(host_tsc, vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_scaling_ratio);
>  
>  	return target_tsc - tsc;

Opportunistically drop "tsc" too?  E.g.

	return target_tsc -
	       kvm_scale_tsc(host_tsc, vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_scaling_ratio);

or

	return target_tsc - kvm_scale_tsc(host_tsc, vcpu->arch.l1_tsc_scaling_ratio);

I find either of those much easier to read.