From: Chenyi Qiang <chenyi.qiang@intel.com>
To: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Tao Xu <tao3.xu@intel.com>,
pbonzini@redhat.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 17:28:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4079f0c9-e34c-c034-853a-b26908a58182@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <080602dc-f998-ec13-ddf9-42902aa477de@intel.com>
On 8/3/2021 8:38 AM, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 8/2/2021 11:46 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 02, 2021, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
>>> On 7/31/2021 4:41 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 25, 2021, Tao Xu wrote:
>>>>> #endif /* __KVM_X86_VMX_CAPS_H */
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>> index 4bceb5ca3a89..c0ad01c88dac 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>>>> @@ -205,6 +205,10 @@ module_param(ple_window_max, uint, 0444);
>>>>> int __read_mostly pt_mode = PT_MODE_SYSTEM;
>>>>> module_param(pt_mode, int, S_IRUGO);
>>>>> +/* Default is 0, less than 0 (for example, -1) disables notify
>>>>> window. */
>>>>> +static int __read_mostly notify_window;
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I like the idea of trusting ucode to select an
>>>> appropriate internal
>>>> threshold. Unless the internal threshold is architecturally defined
>>>> to be at
>>>> least N nanoseconds or whatever, I think KVM should provide its own
>>>> sane default.
>>>> E.g. it's not hard to imagine a scenario where a ucode patch gets
>>>> rolled out that
>>>> adjusts the threshold and starts silently degrading guest performance.
>>>
>>> You mean when internal threshold gets smaller somehow, and cases
>>> false-positive that leads unexpected VM exit on normal instruction?
>>> In this
>>> case, we set increase the vmcs.notify_window in KVM.
>>
>> Not while VMs are running though.
>>
>>> I think there is no better to avoid this case if ucode changes internal
>>> threshold. Unless KVM's default notify_window is bigger enough.
>>>
>>>> Even if the internal threshold isn't architecturally constrained, it
>>>> would be very,
>>>> very helpful if Intel could publish the per-uarch/stepping
>>>> thresholds, e.g. to give
>>>> us a ballpark idea of how agressive KVM can be before it risks false
>>>> positives.
>>>
>>> Even Intel publishes the internal threshold, we still need to provide a
>>> final best_value (internal + vmcs.notify_window). Then what's that
>>> value?
>>
>> The ideal value would be high enough to guarantee there are zero false
>> positives,
>> yet low enough to prevent a malicious guest from causing instability
>> in the host
>> by blocking events for an extended duration. The problem is that
>> there's no
>> magic answer for the threshold at which a blocked event would lead to
>> system
>> instability, and without at least a general idea of the internal value
>> there's no
>> answer at all.
>>
>> IIRC, SGX instructions have a hard upper bound of 25k cycles before
>> they have to
>> check for pending interrupts, e.g. it's why EINIT is interruptible.
>> The 25k cycle
>> limit is likely a good starting point for the combined minimum.
>> That's why I want
>> to know the internal minimum; if the internal minimum is _guaranteed_
>> to be >25k,
>> then KVM can be more aggressive with its default value.
>
> OK. I will go internally to see if we can publish the internal threshold.
>
Hi Sean,
After syncing internally, we know that the internal threshold is not
architectural but a model-specific value. It will be published in some
place in future.
On Sapphire Rapids platform, the threshold is 128k. With this in mind,
is it appropriate to set 0 as the default value of notify_window?
>>> If we have an option for final best_value, then I think it's OK to
>>> just let
>>> vmcs.notify_window = best_value. Then the true final value is
>>> best_value +
>>> internal.
>>> - if it's a normal instruction, it should finish within best_value or
>>> best_value + internal. So it makes no difference.
>>> - if it's an instruction in malicious case, it won't go to next
>>> instruction
>>> whether wait for best_value or best_value + internal.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, 0);
>>>>> vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, 0);
>>>>> vmcs_write32(CR3_TARGET_COUNT, 0); /* 22.2.1 */
>>>>> @@ -5642,6 +5653,31 @@ static int handle_bus_lock_vmexit(struct
>>>>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +static int handle_notify(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + unsigned long exit_qual = vmx_get_exit_qual(vcpu);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (!(exit_qual & NOTIFY_VM_CONTEXT_INVALID)) {
>>>>
>>>> What does CONTEXT_INVALID mean? The ISE doesn't provide any
>>>> information whatsoever.
>>>
>>> It means whether the VM context is corrupted and not valid in the VMCS.
>>
>> Well that's a bit terrifying. Under what conditions can the VM
>> context become
>> corrupted? E.g. if the context can be corrupted by an inopportune
>> NOTIFY exit,
>> then KVM needs to be ultra conservative as a false positive could be
>> fatal to a
>> guest.
>>
>
> Short answer is no case will set the VM_CONTEXT_INVALID bit.
>
> VM_CONTEXT_INVALID is so fatal and IMHO it won't be set for any
> inopportune NOTIFY exit.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-02 9:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-25 5:12 [PATCH v2] KVM: VMX: Enable Notify VM exit Tao Xu
2021-06-02 10:31 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-06-03 1:23 ` Tao Xu
2021-06-03 13:43 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-06-03 1:25 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-06-03 13:35 ` Jim Mattson
2021-06-07 9:24 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-06-03 13:52 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-06-07 9:23 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-06-24 4:52 ` Tao Xu
2021-07-22 3:25 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-07-30 20:41 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-02 12:53 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-08-02 15:46 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-03 0:38 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-09-02 9:28 ` Chenyi Qiang [this message]
2021-09-02 16:29 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-07 13:33 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-09-09 18:47 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-10 7:39 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-09-10 17:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-02 16:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-02 16:36 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-07 13:45 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-09-09 18:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-09-13 2:58 ` Xiaoyao Li
2021-10-15 18:29 ` Sean Christopherson
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=4079f0c9-e34c-c034-853a-b26908a58182@intel.com \
--to=chenyi.qiang@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=joro@8bytes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=tao3.xu@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).