lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/speculation: Support "Enhanced IBRS" on future CPUs
From
Date
On 19/02/2018 11:50, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Cope with this by trapping and emulating *all* access to SPEC_CTRL from
> KVM guests when the IBRS_ALL feature is present, so it can never be
> turned off. Guests who see IBRS_ALL should never do anything except
> turn it on at boot anyway. And if they didn't know about IBRS_ALL and
> they keep frobbing IBRS on every kernel entry/exit... well the vmexit
> for a no-op is probably going to be faster than they were expecting
> anyway, so they'll live.

The problem is, it isn't. On a Haswell (which has fairly slow
SPEC_CTRL) toggling IBRS is 200 cycles. This gives a context switch
time of around 2000 clock cycles with PTI enabled.

This is fairly awful, but with a vmexit cost of ~1100 cycles that goes
up to 2000+(1100-200)*2 = 3800. That's more or less doubling the cost
of a system call.

With newer machines SPEC_CTRL cost goes down but vmexit cost doesn't, so
it's only worse.

For now, we really should do something like

if (vmx->spec_ctrl != host_spec_ctrl)
wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, host_spec_ctrl);
else
lfence();

which later can become

if (vmx->spec_ctrl != host_spec_ctrl)
wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_SPEC_CTRL, host_spec_ctrl);
else {
/* lfence not needed if host_spec_ctrl == 0 */
if (static_cpu_has(BUG_REALLY_WANTS_IBRS))
nospec_barrier();
}

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-20 12:27    [W:0.147 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site