From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Fix for a very old KVM bug in the segment cache
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2024 12:22:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35aed712-d435-4660-a40a-ace7858218c4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240713013856.1568501-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
On 7/13/24 03:38, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> 1. Getting rid of the segment cache. I am not sure how much it helps
> these days - this code is very old.
>
> 2. Using a read/write lock - IMHO the cleanest solution but might
> also affect performance.
A read/write lock would cause a deadlock between the writer and the
sched_out callback, since they run on the same CPU.
I think the root cause of the issue is that clearing the cache should be
done _after_ the writes (and should have a barrier() at the beginning,
if only for cleanliness). So your patch 1 should leave the clearing of
vmx->segment_cache.bitmask where it was.
However, that would still leave an assumption: that it's okay that a
sched_out during vmx_vcpu_reset() (or other functions that write segment
data in the VMCS) accesses stale data, as long as the stale data is not
used after vmx_vcpu_reset() returns. Your patch is a safer approach,
but maybe wrap preempt_disable()/preempt_enable() with
vmx_invalidate_segment_cache_start() {
preempt_disable();
}
vmx_invalidate_segment_cache_end() {
vmx->segment_cache.bitmask = 0;
preempt_enable();
}
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-13 10:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-13 1:38 Maxim Levitsky
2024-07-13 1:38 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: nVMX: use vmx_segment_cache_clear Maxim Levitsky
2024-07-13 1:38 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: disable preemption when writing guest segment state Maxim Levitsky
2024-07-13 10:22 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2024-07-16 2:21 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fix for a very old KVM bug in the segment cache Maxim Levitsky
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35aed712-d435-4660-a40a-ace7858218c4@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®