lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    /
    Date
    From
    Subject[142/143] KVM: x86: Fix a possible backwards warp of kvmclock
    2.6.32-longterm review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let us know.

    ------------------

    From: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>

    (backported from commit 1d5f066e0b63271b67eac6d3752f8aa96adcbddb)


    Kernel time, which advances in discrete steps may progress much slower
    than TSC. As a result, when kvmclock is adjusted to a new base, the
    apparent time to the guest, which runs at a much higher, nsec scaled
    rate based on the current TSC, may have already been observed to have
    a larger value (kernel_ns + scaled tsc) than the value to which we are
    setting it (kernel_ns + 0).

    We must instead compute the clock as potentially observed by the guest
    for kernel_ns to make sure it does not go backwards.

    Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>
    Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>

    BugLink: http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/714335

    Signed-off-by: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@canonical.com>
    Reviewed-by: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
    Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>

    ---
    arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
    arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
    2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

    --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
    +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
    @@ -357,6 +357,9 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
    struct page *time_page;

    bool singlestep; /* guest is single stepped by KVM */
    + u64 last_guest_tsc;
    + u64 last_kernel_ns;
    +
    bool nmi_pending;
    bool nmi_injected;

    --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
    +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
    @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@
    #include <asm/desc.h>
    #include <asm/mtrr.h>
    #include <asm/mce.h>
    +#include <asm/pvclock.h>

    #define MAX_IO_MSRS 256
    #define CR0_RESERVED_BITS \
    @@ -633,6 +634,8 @@ static void kvm_write_guest_time(struct
    struct kvm_vcpu_arch *vcpu = &v->arch;
    void *shared_kaddr;
    unsigned long this_tsc_khz;
    + s64 kernel_ns, max_kernel_ns;
    + u64 tsc_timestamp;

    if ((!vcpu->time_page))
    return;
    @@ -646,15 +649,51 @@ static void kvm_write_guest_time(struct

    /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
    local_irq_save(flags);
    - kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp);
    + kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC, &tsc_timestamp);
    ktime_get_ts(&ts);
    monotonic_to_bootbased(&ts);
    + kernel_ns = timespec_to_ns(&ts);
    local_irq_restore(flags);

    + /*
    + * Time as measured by the TSC may go backwards when resetting the base
    + * tsc_timestamp. The reason for this is that the TSC resolution is
    + * higher than the resolution of the other clock scales. Thus, many
    + * possible measurments of the TSC correspond to one measurement of any
    + * other clock, and so a spread of values is possible. This is not a
    + * problem for the computation of the nanosecond clock; with TSC rates
    + * around 1GHZ, there can only be a few cycles which correspond to one
    + * nanosecond value, and any path through this code will inevitably
    + * take longer than that. However, with the kernel_ns value itself,
    + * the precision may be much lower, down to HZ granularity. If the
    + * first sampling of TSC against kernel_ns ends in the low part of the
    + * range, and the second in the high end of the range, we can get:
    + *
    + * (TSC - offset_low) * S + kns_old > (TSC - offset_high) * S + kns_new
    + *
    + * As the sampling errors potentially range in the thousands of cycles,
    + * it is possible such a time value has already been observed by the
    + * guest. To protect against this, we must compute the system time as
    + * observed by the guest and ensure the new system time is greater.
    + */
    + max_kernel_ns = 0;
    + if (vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp && vcpu->last_guest_tsc) {
    + max_kernel_ns = vcpu->last_guest_tsc -
    + vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp;
    + max_kernel_ns = pvclock_scale_delta(max_kernel_ns,
    + vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul,
    + vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_shift);
    + max_kernel_ns += vcpu->last_kernel_ns;
    + }
    +
    + if (max_kernel_ns > kernel_ns)
    + kernel_ns = max_kernel_ns;
    +
    /* With all the info we got, fill in the values */

    - vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = ts.tv_nsec +
    - (NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)ts.tv_sec) + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
    + vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp = tsc_timestamp;
    + vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = kernel_ns + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
    + vcpu->last_kernel_ns = kernel_ns;

    /*
    * The interface expects us to write an even number signaling that the
    @@ -3695,6 +3734,8 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_v
    kvm_x86_ops->prepare_guest_switch(vcpu);
    kvm_load_guest_fpu(vcpu);

    + kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
    +
    local_irq_disable();

    clear_bit(KVM_REQ_KICK, &vcpu->requests);



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-06 02:45    [W:0.024 / U:31.836 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site