From: Manali Shukla <manali.shukla@amd.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
pbonzini@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org, nikunj@amd.com,
thomas.lendacky@amd.com, vkuznets@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
babu.moger@amd.com, Manali Shukla <manali.shukla@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] KVM: SVM: Enable Bus lock threshold exit
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:07:14 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <0645ce7d-8cde-42e0-801e-a5aba59ce1dd@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZsyqGGspHOsuyEBY@google.com>
On 8/26/2024 9:45 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024, Manali Shukla wrote:
>>> Actually, we already have a capability, which means there's zero reason for this
>>> module param to exist. Userspace already has to opt-in to turning on bus lock
>>> detection, i.e. userspace already has the opportunity to provide a different
>>> threshold.
>>>
>>> That said, unless someone specifically needs a threshold other than '0', I vote
>>> to keep the uAPI as-is and simply exit on every bus lock.
>>>
>>
>> According to APM [1],
>> "The VMCB provides a Bus Lock Threshold enable bit and an unsigned 16-bit Bus
>> Lock Threshold count. On VMRUN, this value is loaded into an internal count
>> register. Before the processor executes a bus lock in the guest, it checks
>> the value of this register. If the value is greater than 0, the processor
>> executes the bus lock successfully and decrements the count. If the value is
>> 0, the bus lock is not executed and a #VMEXIT to the VMM is taken."
>>
>> So, the bus_lock_counter value "0" always results in VMEXIT_BUSLOCK, so the
>> default value of the bus_lock_counter should be greater or equal to "1".
>
> Ugh, so AMD's bus-lock VM-Exit is fault-like. That's annoying.
Yeah.
>
>> I can remove the module parameter and initialize the value of
>> bus_lock_counter as "1" ?
>
> No, because that will have the effect of detecting every other bus lock, whereas
> the intent is to detect _every_ bus lock.
>
> I think the only sane approach is to set it to '0' when enabled, and then set it
> to '1' on a bus lock exit _before_ exiting to userspace. If userspace or the
> guest mucks with RIP or the guest code stream and doesn't immediately trigger the
> bus lock, then so be it. That only defers the allowed bus lock to a later time,
> so effectively such shenanigans would penalize the guest even more.
>
When the bus_lock_counter is set to '1' and a bus lock is generated in the guest,
the counter is decremented to '0', triggering a bus lock exit immediately.
So, bus lock exit is triggered for every generated bus locks in the guest when
bus_lock_counter value is set to '1'.
> We'll need to document that KVM on AMD exits to userspace with RIP pointing at
> the offending instruction, whereas KVM on Intel exits with RIP pointing at the
> instruction after the guilty instruction.
Sure I will document it.
- Manali
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-29 6:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-09 17:51 [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Add support for the Bus Lock Threshold Manali Shukla
2024-07-09 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH v1 1/4] x86/cpufeatures: Add CPUID feature bit " Manali Shukla
2024-08-16 19:37 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-22 9:43 ` Manali Shukla
2024-08-29 6:48 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-08-30 4:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-30 8:21 ` Borislav Petkov
2024-09-20 5:53 ` Manali Shukla
2024-07-09 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] KVM: SVM: Enable Bus lock threshold exit Manali Shukla
2024-08-16 19:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-24 5:35 ` Manali Shukla
2024-08-26 16:15 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-29 6:37 ` Manali Shukla [this message]
2024-08-28 16:44 ` Manali Shukla
2024-07-09 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] KVM: x86: nSVM: Implement support for nested Bus Lock Threshold Manali Shukla
2024-08-16 20:05 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-28 15:52 ` Manali Shukla
2024-08-16 20:14 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-29 14:32 ` Manali Shukla
2024-07-09 17:51 ` [RFC PATCH v1 4/4] KVM: selftests: Add bus lock exit test Manali Shukla
2024-08-16 20:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-26 10:29 ` Manali Shukla
2024-08-26 16:06 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-08-29 9:41 ` Manali Shukla
2024-07-30 4:52 ` [RFC PATCH v1 0/4] Add support for the Bus Lock Threshold Manali Shukla
2024-08-07 3:55 ` Manali Shukla
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=0645ce7d-8cde-42e0-801e-a5aba59ce1dd@amd.com \
--to=manali.shukla@amd.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nikunj@amd.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=shuah@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.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