linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] KVM: selftests: Add an NX huge pages jitter test

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: <aI1AI3yYTYsb5Ihn@google.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 15:30:59 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@...gle.com>, 
	David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 7/7] KVM: selftests: Add an NX huge pages jitter test

On Fri, Aug 01, 2025, James Houghton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2025 at 7:11 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 28, 2025, James Houghton wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 2:04 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025, James Houghton wrote:
> > > > Right, but we also don't want to wait for the initial fault-in either, no?  I.e.
> > > > plumbing in MAP_POPULATE only fixes the worst of the delay, and maybe only with
> > > > the TDP MMU enabled.
> > > >
> > > > In other words, it seems like we need a helper (option?) to excplitly "prefault",
> > > > all memory from within the guest, not the ability to specify MAP_POPULATE.
> > >
> > > I don't want the EPT to be populated.
> > >
> > > In the event of a hugepage being executed, consider another memory
> > > access. The access can either (1) be in the executed-from hugepage or
> > > (2) be somewhere else.
> > >
> > > For (1), the optimization in this series doesn't help; we will often
> > > be stuck behind the hugepage either being destroyed or reconstructed.
> > >
> > > For (2), the optimization in this series is an improvement, and that's
> > > what this test is trying to demonstrate. But this is only true if the
> > > EPT does not have a valid mapping for the GPA we tried to use. If it
> > > does, the access will just proceed like normal.
> > >
> > > This test only times these "case 2" accesses. Now if we didn't have
> > > MAP_POPULATE, then (non-fast) GUP time appears in these results, which
> > > (IIRC) adds so much noise that the improvement is difficult to
> > > ascertain. But with MAP_POPULATE, the difference is very clear.
> >
> > Oh, right, the whole point is to measure fault-in performance.
> >
> > In that case, rather than MAP_POPULATE, can we do the slightly more standard (for
> > VMMs) thing of writing (or reading) memory from host userspace?  I don't think it's
> > worth plumbing in extra_mmap_flags just for MAP_POPULATE, in no small part because
> > MAP_POPULATE is effectively best effort, and doesn't work for VM_PFNMAP (or VM_IO).
> >
> > Those quirks shouldn't matter for this case, and _probably_ won't ever matter for
> > any KVM selftest, but it's enough to make me think MAP_POPULATE is a pattern we
> > don't want to encourage.
> 
> What if vm_mem_add() just returned the VA of the added region, and
> then the test could call mlock() on it? 

I like it!