lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: vmx: Allow direct access to MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL
On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 1:49 PM, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 12:31:13PM -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 08:46:03AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2018-01-28 at 16:39 -0800, Liran Alon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Windows use IBRS and Microsoft don't have any plans to switch to retpoline.
>> > > Running a Windows guest should be a pretty common use-case no?
>> > >
>> > > In addition, your handle of the first WRMSR intercept could be different.
>> > > It could signal you to start doing the following:
>> > > 1. Disable intercept on SPEC_CTRL MSR.
>> > > 2. On VMEntry, Write vCPU SPEC_CTRL value into physical MSR.
>> > > 3. On VMExit, read physical MSR into vCPU SPEC_CTRL value.
>> > > (And if IBRS is used at host, also set physical SPEC_CTRL MSR here to 1)
>> > >
>> > > That way, you will both have fastest option as long as guest don't use IBRS
>> > > and also won't have the 3% performance hit compared to Konrad's proposal.
>> > >
>> > > Am I missing something?
>> >
>> > Reads from the SPEC_CTRL MSR are strangely slow. I suspect a large part
>> > of the 3% speedup you observe is because in the above, the vmentry path
>> > doesn't need to *read* the host's value and store it; the host is
>> > expected to restore it for itself anyway?
>>
>> Yes for at least the purpose of correctness. That is based on what I have
>> heard is that you when you transition to a higher ring you have to write 1, then write zero
>> when you transition back to lower rings. That is it is like a knob.
>>
>> But then I heard that on some CPUs it is more like reset button and
>> just writting 1 to IBRS is fine. But again, correctness here.
>>
>> >
>> > I'd actually quite like to repeat the benchmark on the new fixed
>> > microcode, if anyone has it yet, to see if that read/swap slowness is
>> > still quite as excessive. I'm certainly not ruling this out, but I'm
>> > just a little wary of premature optimisation, and I'd like to make sure
>> > we have everything *else* in the KVM patches right first.
>> >
>> > The fact that the save-and-restrict macros I have in the tip of my
>> > working tree at the moment are horrid and causing 0-day nastygrams,
>> > probably doesn't help persuade me to favour the approach ;)
>> >
>> > ... hm, the CPU actually has separate MSR save/restore lists for
>> > entry/exit, doesn't it? Is there any way to sanely make use of that and
>> > do the restoration manually on vmentry but let it be automatic on
>> > vmexit, by having it *only* in the guest's MSR-store area to be saved
>> > on exit and restored on exit, but *not* in the host's MSR-store area?
>
> s/on exit and restored on exit/on exit and restored on entry/?
>
> Additionally, AIUI there is no "host's MSR-store area".
>
>> Oh. That sounds sounds interesting
>
> That is possible but you have to split add_atomic_switch_msr() accordingly.
>
>> > Reading the code and comparing with the SDM, I can't see where we're
>> > ever setting VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_{ADDR,COUNT} except in the nested
>> > case...
>>
>> Right. We (well Daniel Kiper, CC-ed) implemented it for this and
>> that is where we got the numbers.
>>
>> Daniel, you OK posting it here? Granted with the caveats thta it won't even
>> compile against upstream as it was based on a distro kernel.
>
> Please look below...
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> index aa9bc4f..e7c0f8b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> @@ -162,8 +162,10 @@ module_param(ple_window_max, int, S_IRUGO);
>
> extern const ulong vmx_return;
>
> -#define NR_AUTOLOAD_MSRS 8
> -#define VMCS02_POOL_SIZE 1
> +#define NR_AUTOLOAD_MSRS 8
> +#define NR_AUTOSTORE_MSRS NR_AUTOLOAD_MSRS
> +
> +#define VMCS02_POOL_SIZE 1

I think you accidentally resurrected VMCS02_POOL_SIZE.

> struct vmcs {
> u32 revision_id;
> @@ -504,6 +506,10 @@ struct vcpu_vmx {
> struct vmx_msr_entry guest[NR_AUTOLOAD_MSRS];
> struct vmx_msr_entry host[NR_AUTOLOAD_MSRS];
> } msr_autoload;
> + struct msr_autostore {
> + unsigned nr;
> + struct vmx_msr_entry guest[NR_AUTOSTORE_MSRS];
> + } msr_autostore;
> struct {
> int loaded;
> u16 fs_sel, gs_sel, ldt_sel;
> @@ -1704,6 +1710,37 @@ static void add_atomic_switch_msr(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, unsigned msr,
> m->host[i].value = host_val;
> }
>
> +static void add_atomic_store_msr(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, unsigned msr)
> +{
> + unsigned i;
> + struct msr_autostore *m = &vmx->msr_autostore;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < m->nr; ++i)
> + if (m->guest[i].index == msr)
> + return;
> +
> + if (i == NR_AUTOSTORE_MSRS) {
> + pr_err("Not enough msr store entries. Can't add msr %x\n", msr);
> + BUG();

I wouldn't panic the host for this. add_atomic_switch_msr() just emits
a warning for the equivalent condition. (Resetting the vCPU might be
better in both cases.)

> + }
> +
> + m->guest[i].index = msr;
> + vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_COUNT, ++m->nr);
> +}
> +
> +static u64 get_msr_vmcs_store(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, unsigned msr)
> +{
> + unsigned i;
> + struct msr_autostore *m = &vmx->msr_autostore;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < m->nr; ++i)
> + if (m->guest[i].index == msr)
> + return m->guest[i].value;
> +
> + pr_err("Can't find msr %x in VMCS store\n", msr);
> + BUG();

Same comment as above.

> +}
> +
> static void reload_tss(void)
> {
> /*
> @@ -4716,6 +4753,7 @@ static int vmx_vcpu_setup(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> #endif
>
> vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_COUNT, 0);
> + vmcs_write64(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_ADDR, __pa(vmx->msr_autostore.guest));
> vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_MSR_LOAD_COUNT, 0);
> vmcs_write64(VM_EXIT_MSR_LOAD_ADDR, __pa(vmx->msr_autoload.host));
> vmcs_write32(VM_ENTRY_MSR_LOAD_COUNT, 0);
> @@ -8192,8 +8230,11 @@ static void __noclone vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> vmx->__launched = vmx->loaded_vmcs->launched;
>
> - if (ibrs_inuse)
> - wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, vmx->spec_ctrl);
> + if (ibrs_inuse) {
> + add_atomic_switch_msr(vmx, MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, vmx->spec_ctrl,
> + SPEC_CTRL_FEATURE_ENABLE_IBRS);
> + add_atomic_store_msr(vmx, MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL);
> + }

If ibrs_inuse can be cleared dynamically, perhaps there should be:
} else {
clear_autostore_msr(vmx, MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL);
}

>
> asm(
> /* Store host registers */
> @@ -8317,12 +8358,11 @@ static void __noclone vmx_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> #endif
> );
>
> - if (ibrs_inuse) {
> - rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, vmx->spec_ctrl);
> - wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, SPEC_CTRL_FEATURE_ENABLE_IBRS);
> - }
> stuff_RSB();
>
> + if (ibrs_inuse)
> + vmx->spec_ctrl = get_msr_vmcs_store(vmx, MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL);
> +
> /* MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR is zeroed on vmexit. Restore it if needed */
> if (debugctlmsr)
> update_debugctlmsr(debugctlmsr);
>
> By the way, I saw in one version of patches that you use own rdmsrl()/wrmsrl()
> functions to save/restore IBRS instead of using common ones (I mean
> native_rdmsrl()/native_wrmsrl(), safe__rdmsrl()/safe_wrmsrl(), etc.) available
> in the kernel. Could you explain why do you do that?
>
> Daniel

What about vmcs02?

If ibrs_inuse can be set dynamically, you may need the following in
nested_vmx_vmexit:

vmcs_write32(VM_EXIT_MSR_STORE_COUNT, vmx->msr_autostore.nr);

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-01-30 00:01    [W:0.110 / U:2.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site