Re: [PATCH] kvm: x86: fix kvmclock update protocol

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:46:55PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> From: Radim KrÄmÃÅ <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> The kvmclock spec says that the host will increment a version field to
> an odd number, then update stuff, then increment it to an even number.
> The host is buggy and doesn't do this, and the result is observable
> when one vcpu reads another vcpu's kvmclock data.
> 
> There's no good way for a guest kernel to keep its vdso from reading
> a different vcpu's kvmclock data, but we don't need to care about
> changing VCPUs as long as we read a consistent data from kvmclock.
> (VCPU can change outside of this loop too, so it doesn't matter if we
> return a value not fit for this VCPU.)
> 
> Based on a patch by Radim KrÄmÃÅ.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index ed31c31b2485..c73efcd03e29 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -1669,12 +1669,28 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
>  		&guest_hv_clock, sizeof(guest_hv_clock))))
>  		return 0;
>  
> -	/*
> -	 * The interface expects us to write an even number signaling that the
> -	 * update is finished. Since the guest won't see the intermediate
> -	 * state, we just increase by 2 at the end.
> +	/* This VCPU is paused, but it's legal for a guest to read another
> +	 * VCPU's kvmclock, so we really have to follow the specification where
> +	 * it says that version is odd if data is being modified, and even after
> +	 * it is consistent.
> +	 *
> +	 * Version field updates must be kept separate.  This is because
> +	 * kvm_write_guest_cached might use a "rep movs" instruction, and
> +	 * writes within a string instruction are weakly ordered.  So there
> +	 * are three writes overall.
> +	 *
> +	 * As a small optimization, only write the version field in the first
> +	 * and third write.  The vcpu->pv_time cache is still valid, because the
> +	 * version field is the first in the struct.
>  	 */
> -	vcpu->hv_clock.version = guest_hv_clock.version + 2;
> +	BUILD_BUG_ON(offsetof(struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info, version) != 0);
> +
> +	vcpu->hv_clock.version = guest_hv_clock.version + 1;
> +	kvm_write_guest_cached(v->kvm, &vcpu->pv_time,
> +				&vcpu->hv_clock,
> +				sizeof(vcpu->hv_clock.version));
> +
> +	smp_wmb();
>  
>  	/* retain PVCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED if set in guest copy */
>  	pvclock_flags = (guest_hv_clock.flags & PVCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED);
> @@ -1695,6 +1711,13 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
>  	kvm_write_guest_cached(v->kvm, &vcpu->pv_time,
>  				&vcpu->hv_clock,
>  				sizeof(vcpu->hv_clock));
> +
> +	smp_wmb();
> +
> +	vcpu->hv_clock.version++;
> +	kvm_write_guest_cached(v->kvm, &vcpu->pv_time,
> +				&vcpu->hv_clock,
> +				sizeof(vcpu->hv_clock.version));
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1

Acked-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/