linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use precise range-based flush in mmu

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: <ZsS_OmxwFzrqDcfY@google.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2024 09:07:22 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use precise range-based flush in mmu_notifier hooks
 when possible

On Tue, Aug 20, 2024, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 12:16:17PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Do arch-specific range-based TLB flushes (if they're supported) when
> > flushing in response to mmu_notifier events, as a single range-based flush
> > is almost always more performant.  This is especially true in the case of
> > mmu_notifier events, as the majority of events that hit a running VM
> > operate on a relatively small range of memory.
> > 
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
> > Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > This is *very* lightly tested, a thumbs up from the ARM world would be much
> > appreciated.
> > 
> >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index d0788d0a72cc..46bb95d58d53 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -599,6 +599,7 @@ static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  	struct kvm_gfn_range gfn_range;
> >  	struct kvm_memory_slot *slot;
> >  	struct kvm_memslots *slots;
> > +	bool need_flush = false;
> >  	int i, idx;
> >  
> >  	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(range->end <= range->start))
> > @@ -651,10 +652,22 @@ static __always_inline kvm_mn_ret_t __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
> >  					goto mmu_unlock;
> >  			}
> >  			r.ret |= range->handler(kvm, &gfn_range);
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Use a precise gfn-based TLB flush when possible, as
> > +			 * most mmu_notifier events affect a small-ish range.
> > +			 * Fall back to a full TLB flush if the gfn-based flush
> > +			 * fails, and don't bother trying the gfn-based flush
> > +			 * if a full flush is already pending.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (range->flush_on_ret && !need_flush && r.ret &&
> > +			    kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range(kvm, gfn_range.start,
> > +							     gfn_range.end - gfn_range.start))
> > +				need_flush = true;
> 
> Thanks for having a crack at this.
> 
> We could still do better in the ->clear_flush_young() case if the

For clear_flush_young(), I 100% think we should let architectures opt out of the
flush.  For architectures where it's safe, the primary MMU doesn't do a TLB flush,
and hasn't for years.  Sending patches for this (for at least x86 and arm64) is
on my todo list.

Even better would be to kill off mmu_notifier_clear_flush_young() entirely, e.g.
if all KVM architectures can elide the flush.

And even better than that would be to kill pxxx_clear_flush_young_notify() in
the kernel, but I suspect that's not feasible as there are architectures that
require a TLB flush for correctness.

> handler could do the invalidation as part of its page-table walk (for
> example, it could use information about the page-table structure such
> as the level of the leaves to optimise the invalidation further), but
> this does at least avoid zapping the whole VMID on CPUs with range
> support.
> 
> My only slight concern is that, should clear_flush_young() be extended
> to operate on more than a single page-at-a-time in future, this will
> silently end up invalidating the entire VMID for each memslot unless we
> teach kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() to return !0 in that case.

I'm not sure I follow the "entire VMID for each memslot" concern.  Are you
worried about kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlbs_range() failing and triggering a VM-wide
flush?