Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC_STATE

From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
	open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC_STATE
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2020 15:11:07 -0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201208181107.GA31442@fuller.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87sg8g2sn4.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>

On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 05:02:07PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08 2020 at 16:50, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-12-07 at 20:29 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >> > +This ioctl allows to reconstruct the guest's IA32_TSC and TSC_ADJUST value
> >> > +from the state obtained in the past by KVM_GET_TSC_STATE on the same vCPU.
> >> > +
> >> > +If 'KVM_TSC_STATE_TIMESTAMP_VALID' is set in flags,
> >> > +KVM will adjust the guest TSC value by the time that passed since the moment
> >> > +CLOCK_REALTIME timestamp was saved in the struct and current value of
> >> > +CLOCK_REALTIME, and set the guest's TSC to the new value.
> >> 
> >> This introduces the wraparound bug in Linux timekeeping, doesnt it?
> 
> Which bug?

max_cycles overflow. Sent a message to Maxim describing it.

> 
> > It does.
> > Could you prepare a reproducer for this bug so I get a better idea about
> > what are you talking about?
> >
> > I assume you need very long (like days worth) jump to trigger this bug
> > and for such case we can either work around it in qemu / kernel 
> > or fix it in the guest kernel and I strongly prefer the latter.
> >
> > Thomas, what do you think about it?
> 
> For one I have no idea which bug you are talking about and if the bug is
> caused by the VMM then why would you "fix" it in the guest kernel.

1) Stop guest, save TSC value of cpu-0 = V.
2) Wait for some amount of time = W.
3) Start guest, load TSC value with V+W.

Can cause an overflow on Linux timekeeping.

> Aside of that I think I made it pretty clear what the right thing to do
> is.

Sure: the notion of a "unique TSC offset" already exists (it is detected
by write TSC logic, and not explicit in the interface, though).

But AFAIK it works pretty well.

Exposing a single TSC value on the interface level seems alright to
me...