linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Allow AVIC's IPI virtualization to be optional

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8d7e0d0391df4efc7cb28557297eb2ec9904f1e5.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 22:34:27 -0500
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen
 <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar
 <mingo@...hat.com>,  "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Thomas Gleixner
 <tglx@...utronix.de>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Suravee Suthikulpanit
 <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,  Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
 iommu@...ts.linux.dev, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Allow AVIC's IPI virtualization to be optional

On Tue, 2024-10-22 at 12:00 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > About the added 'vcpu->loaded' variable, I added it also because it is
> > > something that is long overdue to be added, I remember that in IPIv code
> > > there was also a need for this, and probalby more places in KVM can be
> > > refactored to take advantage of it, instead of various hacks.
> > 
> > I don't view using the information from the Physical ID table as a hack.  It very
> > explicitly uses the ir_list_lock to ensure that the pCPU that's programmed into
> > the IRTE is the pCPU on which the vCPU is loaded, and provides rather strict
> > ordering between task migration and device assignment.  It's not a super hot path,
> > so I don't think lockless programming is justified.

If you strongly prefer this I won't argue. KVM does read back its SPTE entries,
which is also something I can't say that I like that much.

> > 
> > I also think we should keep IsRunning=1 when the vCPU is unloaded.  That approach
> > won't run afoul of your concern with signaling the wrong pCPU, because KVM can
> > still keep the ID up-to-date, e.g. if the task is migrated when a pCPU is being
> > offlined.
> > 
> > The motiviation for keeping IsRunning=1 is to avoid unnecessary VM-Exits and GA
> > log IRQs.  E.g. if a vCPU exits to userspace, there's zero reason to force IPI
> > senders to exit, because KVM can't/won't notify userspace, and the pending virtual
> > interrupt will be processed on the next VMRUN.
> 
> My only hesitation to keeping IsRunning=1 is that there could, in theory, be a
> noisy neighbor problem.  E.g. if there is meaningful overhead when the CPU responds
> to the doorbell. 

I once measured this by bombarding a regular CPU, which is not running any guests,
with AVIC doorbells. It was like 60% reduction of its performance if I remember correctly.

So physical id table entries of a VM can't point to a CPU which doesn't run the VM's vCPU thread, because
only in this case this doesn't pose a DOS risk.

Same with IOMMU (malicious guest can in theory make an assigned device generate an interrupt
storm, and then this storm can get redirected to a doorbell of a CPU which doesn't belong to a VM).

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

>  Hrm, and if another vCPU is scheduled in on the same pCPU, that
> vCPU could end up processing a virtual interrupt in response to a doorbell intended
> for a different vCPU.
> 
> The counter-argument to both concerns is that APICv Posted Interrupts have had a
> _worse_ version of that behavior for years, and no one has complained.  KVM sets
> PID.SN only when a vCPU is _preempted_, and so devices (and now virtual IPIs) will
> send notification IRQs to pCPUs that aren't actively running the vCPU, or are
> running a different vCPU.
> 
> The counter-counter-argument is that (a) IPI virtualization is a recent addition,
> and device posted interrupts are unlikely to be used in a CPU oversubscribed setup,
> and (b) Posted Interrupts are effectively rate-limited to a single "spurious"
> notification per vCPU, as notification IRQs are sent if and only if PID.ON=0.
> 
> That said, while I'm somewhat less confident that keeping IsRunning=1 is desirable
> for all use cases than I was yesterday, I still think we should avoid tightly
> coupling it to whether or not the vCPU is loaded, because there are undoubtedly
> setups where it _is_ desirable, e.g. if vCPUs are pinned 1:1 to pCPUs.
>