* Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set
@ 2018-11-25 6:18 Andy Smith
2018-11-25 9:14 ` Andy Smith
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andy Smith @ 2018-11-25 6:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3982 bytes --]
Hi,
Last weekend I deployed a hypervisor built from 4.10.1 release
plus the most recent XSAs (which were under embargo at that time).
Previously to this I had only gone as far as XSA-267, having taken a
decision to wait before applying later XSAs. So, this most recent
deployment included the fixes for XSA-273 for the first time.
Over the course of this past week, some guests started to experience
sporadic assertion failures in libc/malloc.c or strange segmentation
violations. In most cases it is not easily reproducible, but I got a
report from one guest administrator that their php-fpm process is
reliably segfaulting immediately. For example:
[19-Nov-2018 06:39:56] WARNING: [pool www] child 3682 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV) after 18.601413 seconds from start
[19-Nov-2018 06:39:56] NOTICE: [pool www] child 3683 started
[19-Nov-2018 06:40:16] WARNING: [pool www] child 3683 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV) after 20.364357 seconds from start
[19-Nov-2018 06:40:16] NOTICE: [pool www] child 3684 started
[19-Nov-2018 06:43:43] WARNING: [pool www] child 3426 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV) after 1327.885798 seconds from start
[19-Nov-2018 06:43:43] NOTICE: [pool www] child 3739 started
[19-Nov-2018 06:43:59] WARNING: [pool www] child 3739 exited on signal 11 (SIGSEGV) after 15.922980 seconds from start
The failures that mention malloc.c are happening in multiple
different binaries, including grep, perl and shells. They look like
this:
grep: malloc.c:2372: sysmalloc: Assertion `(old_top == (((mbinptr) (((char *) &((av)->bins[((1) - 1) * 2])) - __builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd)))) && old_size == 0) || ((unsigned long) (old_size) >= (unsigned long)((((__builtin_offsetof (struct malloc_chunk, fd_nextsize))+((2 *(sizeof(size_t))) - 1)) & ~((2 *(sizeof(size_t))) - 1))) && ((old_top)->size & 0x1) && ((unsigned long) old_end & pagemask) == 0)' failed.
I have not been able to reproduce these problems when I boot the
hypervisor with pv-l1tf=false. The php-fpm one was previously
reproducible 100% of the time. The other cases are very hard to
trigger but with pv-l1tf=false I am not able to at all.
I have since checked out staging-4.10 and am experiencing the same
thing, so I'm fairly confident it is not something I've introduced
when applying XSA patches.
My workload is several hundred PV guests across 9 servers with two
different types of Intel CPU. The guests are of many different Linux
distributions, probably a 70/30 split between 32- and 64-bit. I have
so far only encountered this with 64-bit guests running Debian
jessie and stretch, less than 10 guests are affected (so far
reported), and all of them trigger the "d1 L1TF-vulnerable L1e
000000006a6ff960 - Shadowing" warning in dmesg (though there are
hundreds of others which trigger it yet seem unaffected). There is
an unconfirmed report from 64-bit Gentoo.
In the text for XSA-273 it says:
"Shadowing comes with a workload-dependent performance hit to
the guest. Once the guest kernel software updates have been
applied, a well behaved guest will not write vulnerable PTEs,
and will therefore avoid the performance penalty (or crash)
entirely."
Does anyone have a reference to what is needed in the Linux kernel
for that? Perhaps I can see what the status of that is within kernel
upstream / Debian and then get past the problem by getting an
updated guest kernel onto affected guests.
Also:
"This behaviour is active by default for guests on affected
hardware (controlled by `pv-l1tf=`), but is disabled by default
for dom0. Dom0's exemption is because of instabilities when
being shadowed, which are under investigation"
I have not had these issues in any of my 9 dom0s which are all
64-bit Debian jessie. Since these L1TF fixes are not active for
dom0, that makes sense. Are the observed dom0 instabilities similar
to what I am seeing in some guests?
Any suggestions for further debugging? I have attached an "xl
dmesg".
Cheers,
Andy
[-- Attachment #2: dmesg.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 12122 bytes --]
(XEN) parameter "placeholder" unknown!
__ __ _ _ _ ___ _____
\ \/ /___ _ __ | || | / |/ _ \ |___ / _ __ _ __ ___
\ // _ \ '_ \ | || |_ | | | | | |_ \ __| '_ \| '__/ _ \
/ \ __/ | | | |__ _|| | |_| | ___) |__| |_) | | | __/
/_/\_\___|_| |_| |_|(_)_|\___(_)____/ | .__/|_| \___|
|_|
(XEN) Xen version 4.10.3-pre (andy@bitfolk.com) (gcc (Debian 4.9.2-10+deb8u1) 4.9.2) debug=n Sun Nov 25 05:48:03 UTC 2018
(XEN) Latest ChangeSet: Tue Nov 20 15:45:04 2018 +0100 git:b6e203b
(XEN) Bootloader: GRUB 2.02~beta2-22+deb8u1
(XEN) Command line: placeholder dom0_mem=2048M,max:4096M dom0_max_vcpus=2 com1=115200,8n1,0x2f8,10 console=com1,vga ucode=scan serial_tx_buffer=256k loglvl=info
(XEN) Xen image load base address: 0
(XEN) Video information:
(XEN) VGA is text mode 80x25, font 8x16
(XEN) VBE/DDC methods: none; EDID transfer time: 1 seconds
(XEN) EDID info not retrieved because no DDC retrieval method detected
(XEN) Disc information:
(XEN) Found 2 MBR signatures
(XEN) Found 5 EDD information structures
(XEN) Xen-e820 RAM map:
(XEN) 0000000000000000 - 0000000000098800 (usable)
(XEN) 0000000000098800 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
(XEN) 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
(XEN) 0000000000100000 - 0000000078f6a000 (usable)
(XEN) 0000000078f6a000 - 0000000079858000 (reserved)
(XEN) 0000000079858000 - 0000000079d47000 (ACPI NVS)
(XEN) 0000000079d47000 - 0000000090000000 (reserved)
(XEN) 00000000fed1c000 - 00000000fed45000 (reserved)
(XEN) 00000000ff000000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
(XEN) 0000000100000000 - 0000004080000000 (usable)
(XEN) New Xen image base address: 0x78800000
(XEN) ACPI: RSDP 000F05B0, 0024 (r2 SUPERM)
(XEN) ACPI: XSDT 798A80A0, 00BC (r1 1072009 AMI 10013)
(XEN) ACPI: FACP 798D8E48, 010C (r5 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 AMI 10013)
(XEN) ACPI: DSDT 798A81F0, 30C53 (r2 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 INTL 20091013)
(XEN) ACPI: FACS 79D45F80, 0040
(XEN) ACPI: APIC 798D8F58, 0138 (r3 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 AMI 10013)
(XEN) ACPI: FPDT 798D9090, 0044 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 AMI 10013)
(XEN) ACPI: FIDT 798D90D8, 009C (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 AMI 10013)
(XEN) ACPI: SPMI 798D9178, 0040 (r5 SUPERM SMCI--MB 0 AMI. 0)
(XEN) ACPI: MCFG 798D91B8, 003C (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 MSFT 97)
(XEN) ACPI: UEFI 798D91F8, 0042 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1072009 0)
(XEN) ACPI: HPET 798D9240, 0038 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 20091013)
(XEN) ACPI: WDDT 798D9278, 0040 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 0 INTL 20091013)
(XEN) ACPI: SSDT 798D92B8, 1717F (r2 SUPERM PmMgt 1 INTL 20120913)
(XEN) ACPI: NITR 798F0438, 0071 (r2 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 20091013)
(XEN) ACPI: SSDT 798F04B0, 264C (r2 SUPERM SpsNm 2 INTL 20120913)
(XEN) ACPI: SSDT 798F2B00, 0064 (r2 SUPERM SpsNvs 2 INTL 20120913)
(XEN) ACPI: PRAD 798F2B68, 0102 (r2 SUPERM SMCI--MB 2 INTL 20120913)
(XEN) ACPI: DMAR 798F2C70, 00C4 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 20091013)
(XEN) ACPI: HEST 798F2D38, 027C (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 1)
(XEN) ACPI: BERT 798F2FB8, 0030 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 1)
(XEN) ACPI: ERST 798F2FE8, 0230 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 1)
(XEN) ACPI: EINJ 798F3218, 0130 (r1 SUPERM SMCI--MB 1 INTL 1)
(XEN) System RAM: 262031MB (268319752kB)
(XEN) No NUMA configuration found
(XEN) Faking a node at 0000000000000000-0000004080000000
(XEN) Domain heap initialised
(XEN) CPU Vendor: Intel, Family 6 (0x6), Model 79 (0x4f), Stepping 1 (raw 000406f1)
(XEN) found SMP MP-table at 000fcd20
(XEN) DMI 3.0 present.
(XEN) Using APIC driver default
(XEN) ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x408 (32 bits)
(XEN) ACPI: v5 SLEEP INFO: control[0:0], status[0:0]
(XEN) ACPI: SLEEP INFO: pm1x_cnt[1:404,1:0], pm1x_evt[1:400,1:0]
(XEN) ACPI: 32/64X FACS address mismatch in FADT - 79d45f80/0000000000000000, using 32
(XEN) ACPI: wakeup_vec[79d45f8c], vec_size[20]
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x00] lapic_id[0x00] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x02] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x04] lapic_id[0x04] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x06] lapic_id[0x06] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x08] lapic_id[0x08] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0a] lapic_id[0x0a] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0c] lapic_id[0x0c] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0e] lapic_id[0x0e] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x01] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x03] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x05] lapic_id[0x05] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x07] lapic_id[0x07] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x09] lapic_id[0x09] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0b] lapic_id[0x0b] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0d] lapic_id[0x0d] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x0f] lapic_id[0x0f] enabled)
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x00] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x02] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x04] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x06] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x08] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0a] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0c] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0e] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x03] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x05] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x07] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x09] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0b] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0d] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x0f] high edge lint[0x1])
(XEN) Overriding APIC driver with bigsmp
(XEN) ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x01] address[0xfec00000] gsi_base[0])
(XEN) IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 1, version 32, address 0xfec00000, GSI 0-23
(XEN) ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x02] address[0xfec01000] gsi_base[24])
(XEN) IOAPIC[1]: apic_id 2, version 32, address 0xfec01000, GSI 24-47
(XEN) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl)
(XEN) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 high level)
(XEN) Enabling APIC mode: Phys. Using 2 I/O APICs
(XEN) ACPI: HPET id: 0x8086a701 base: 0xfed00000
(XEN) Xen ERST support is initialized.
(XEN) HEST: Table parsing has been initialized
(XEN) Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information
(XEN) SMP: Allowing 16 CPUs (0 hotplug CPUs)
(XEN) IRQ limits: 48 GSI, 3040 MSI/MSI-X
(XEN) Not enabling x2APIC (upon firmware request)
(XEN) microcode: CPU0 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) xstate: size: 0x340 and states: 0x7
(XEN) CMCI: threshold 0x2 too large for CPU0 bank 17, using 0x1
(XEN) CMCI: threshold 0x2 too large for CPU0 bank 18, using 0x1
(XEN) CMCI: threshold 0x2 too large for CPU0 bank 19, using 0x1
(XEN) CPU0: Intel machine check reporting enabled
(XEN) Speculative mitigation facilities:
(XEN) Hardware features: IBRS/IBPB STIBP L1D_FLUSH SSBD
(XEN) Compiled-in support: INDIRECT_THUNK SHADOW_PAGING
(XEN) Xen settings: BTI-Thunk RETPOLINE, SPEC_CTRL: IBRS- SSBD-, Other: IBPB L1D_FLUSH
(XEN) L1TF: believed vulnerable, maxphysaddr L1D 46, CPUID 46, Safe address 300000000000
(XEN) Support for VMs: PV: MSR_SPEC_CTRL RSB EAGER_FPU, HVM: MSR_SPEC_CTRL RSB EAGER_FPU
(XEN) XPTI (64-bit PV only): Dom0 enabled, DomU enabled
(XEN) PV L1TF shadowing: Dom0 disabled, DomU enabled
(XEN) Using scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit)
(XEN) Platform timer is 14.318MHz HPET
(XEN) Detected 3400.011 MHz processor.
(XEN) Initing memory sharing.
(XEN) alt table ffff82d080420bb8 -> ffff82d080422670
(XEN) PCI: MCFG configuration 0: base 80000000 segment 0000 buses 00 - ff
(XEN) PCI: MCFG area at 80000000 reserved in E820
(XEN) PCI: Using MCFG for segment 0000 bus 00-ff
(XEN) Intel VT-d iommu 0 supported page sizes: 4kB, 2MB, 1GB.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Snoop Control enabled.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Dom0 DMA Passthrough not enabled.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Queued Invalidation enabled.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Interrupt Remapping enabled.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Posted Interrupt not enabled.
(XEN) Intel VT-d Shared EPT tables enabled.
(XEN) I/O virtualisation enabled
(XEN) - Dom0 mode: Relaxed
(XEN) Interrupt remapping enabled
(XEN) Enabled directed EOI with ioapic_ack_old on!
(XEN) ENABLING IO-APIC IRQs
(XEN) -> Using old ACK method
(XEN) ..TIMER: vector=0xF0 apic1=0 pin1=2 apic2=-1 pin2=-1
(XEN) Allocated console ring of 64 KiB.
(XEN) VMX: Supported advanced features:
(XEN) - APIC MMIO access virtualisation
(XEN) - APIC TPR shadow
(XEN) - Extended Page Tables (EPT)
(XEN) - Virtual-Processor Identifiers (VPID)
(XEN) - Virtual NMI
(XEN) - MSR direct-access bitmap
(XEN) - Unrestricted Guest
(XEN) - APIC Register Virtualization
(XEN) - Virtual Interrupt Delivery
(XEN) - Posted Interrupt Processing
(XEN) - VMCS shadowing
(XEN) - VM Functions
(XEN) - Virtualisation Exceptions
(XEN) - Page Modification Logging
(XEN) HVM: ASIDs enabled.
(XEN) HVM: VMX enabled
(XEN) HVM: Hardware Assisted Paging (HAP) detected
(XEN) HVM: HAP page sizes: 4kB, 2MB, 1GB
(XEN) microcode: CPU2 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU4 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU6 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU8 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU10 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU12 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) microcode: CPU14 updated from revision 0xb00001d to 0xb00002e, date = 2018-04-19
(XEN) Brought up 16 CPUs
(XEN) build-id: dc0cee6d0c848a3b9f273129ba6af4c566ddfab7
(XEN) ACPI sleep modes: S3
(XEN) VPMU: disabled
(XEN) mcheck_poll: Machine check polling timer started.
(XEN) Dom0 has maximum 432 PIRQs
(XEN) NX (Execute Disable) protection active
(XEN) *** LOADING DOMAIN 0 ***
(XEN) Xen kernel: 64-bit, lsb, compat32
(XEN) Dom0 kernel: 64-bit, PAE, lsb, paddr 0x1000000 -> 0x1f34000
(XEN) PHYSICAL MEMORY ARRANGEMENT:
(XEN) Dom0 alloc.: 0000004008000000->000000400c000000 (506553 pages to be allocated)
(XEN) Init. ramdisk: 000000407fab9000->000000407ffffee7
(XEN) VIRTUAL MEMORY ARRANGEMENT:
(XEN) Loaded kernel: ffffffff81000000->ffffffff81f34000
(XEN) Init. ramdisk: ffffffff81f34000->ffffffff8247aee7
(XEN) Phys-Mach map: ffffffff8247b000->ffffffff8287b000
(XEN) Start info: ffffffff8287b000->ffffffff8287b4b4
(XEN) Xenstore ring: 0000000000000000->0000000000000000
(XEN) Console ring: 0000000000000000->0000000000000000
(XEN) Page tables: ffffffff8287c000->ffffffff82895000
(XEN) Boot stack: ffffffff82895000->ffffffff82896000
(XEN) TOTAL: ffffffff80000000->ffffffff82c00000
(XEN) ENTRY ADDRESS: ffffffff819151f0
(XEN) Dom0 has maximum 2 VCPUs
(XEN) Initial low memory virq threshold set at 0x4000 pages.
(XEN) Scrubbing Free RAM on 1 nodes using 8 CPUs
(XEN) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................done.
(XEN) Std. Loglevel: Errors, warnings and info
(XEN) Guest Loglevel: Nothing (Rate-limited: Errors and warnings)
(XEN) ***************************************************
(XEN) Booted on L1TF-vulnerable hardware with SMT/Hyperthreading
(XEN) enabled. Please assess your configuration and choose an
(XEN) explicit 'smt=<bool>' setting. See XSA-273.
(XEN) ***************************************************
(XEN) 3... 2... 1...
(XEN) Xen is relinquishing VGA console.
(XEN) *** Serial input -> DOM0 (type 'CTRL-a' three times to switch input to Xen)
(XEN) Freed 472kB init memory
(XEN) d1 L1TF-vulnerable L1e 000000006a6ff960 - Shadowing
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set
2018-11-25 6:18 Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set Andy Smith
@ 2018-11-25 9:14 ` Andy Smith
2018-11-25 14:48 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andy Smith @ 2018-11-25 9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Hello,
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:18:49AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
> In the text for XSA-273 it says:
>
> "Shadowing comes with a workload-dependent performance hit to
> the guest. Once the guest kernel software updates have been
> applied, a well behaved guest will not write vulnerable PTEs,
> and will therefore avoid the performance penalty (or crash)
> entirely."
>
> Does anyone have a reference to what is needed in the Linux kernel
> for that?
Perhaps stupidly, I have only just now thought to check whether the
one guest I have an easy reproducer on (predictable failure of
php-fpm) was actually running an up to date kernel. It was not.
It is Debian stretch and was running kernel package
linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 version 4.9.110-3+deb9u2. The guest's
administrator obviously had not done any upgrades since install time
because updated kernel linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 version 4.9.130-2
was available.
After installing and booting with that, the guest no longer causes
"L1TF-vulnerable L1e 000000006a6ff960 - Shadowing" to be emitted in
the hypervisor dmesg, and the problems I described disappear.
I assume this is because of:
https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/l/linux/linux_4.9.130-2_changelog
linux (4.9.110-3+deb9u3) stretch-security; urgency=high
[ Salvatore Bonaccorso ]
* Add L1 Terminal Fault fixes (CVE-2018-3620, CVE-2018-3646)
So, I can tell affected guest administrators to upgrade their
kernels to include Linux's L1TF protections and their problems
should go away.
Do you care that without those fixes there appear to be memory
corruption issues? If so, I can keep this reproducer guest around
and debug it further.
Cheers,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set
2018-11-25 9:14 ` Andy Smith
@ 2018-11-25 14:48 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-11-25 16:29 ` Andy Smith
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2018-11-25 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Smith, xen-devel
On 25/11/2018 09:14, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 06:18:49AM +0000, Andy Smith wrote:
>> In the text for XSA-273 it says:
>>
>> "Shadowing comes with a workload-dependent performance hit to
>> the guest. Once the guest kernel software updates have been
>> applied, a well behaved guest will not write vulnerable PTEs,
>> and will therefore avoid the performance penalty (or crash)
>> entirely."
>>
>> Does anyone have a reference to what is needed in the Linux kernel
>> for that?
> Perhaps stupidly, I have only just now thought to check whether the
> one guest I have an easy reproducer on (predictable failure of
> php-fpm) was actually running an up to date kernel. It was not.
>
> It is Debian stretch and was running kernel package
> linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 version 4.9.110-3+deb9u2. The guest's
> administrator obviously had not done any upgrades since install time
> because updated kernel linux-image-4.9.0-8-amd64 version 4.9.130-2
> was available.
>
> After installing and booting with that, the guest no longer causes
> "L1TF-vulnerable L1e 000000006a6ff960 - Shadowing" to be emitted in
> the hypervisor dmesg, and the problems I described disappear.
>
> I assume this is because of:
>
> https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/l/linux/linux_4.9.130-2_changelog
>
> linux (4.9.110-3+deb9u3) stretch-security; urgency=high
>
> [ Salvatore Bonaccorso ]
> * Add L1 Terminal Fault fixes (CVE-2018-3620, CVE-2018-3646)
>
> So, I can tell affected guest administrators to upgrade their
> kernels to include Linux's L1TF protections and their problems
> should go away.
>
> Do you care that without those fixes there appear to be memory
> corruption issues? If so, I can keep this reproducer guest around
> and debug it further.
Yes please - we'd like to get to the bottom of this. Shadow pagetables
should function the same as not using them in the first place, and
clearly there is a bug here.
In terms of your previous question concerning the default for dom0, I
did eventually get to the bottom of that.
https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2018-11/msg00943.html
We had some shadow bugs (different across different releases) when
trying to shadow PV guests with superpages, and this definitely is
specific to dom0.
In terms of debugging this issue, I'm afraid that will be a little more
complicated.
Fundamentally, it will either be insufficient/incorrect TLB flushing, or
something is causing the shadow pagetables to become wrong WRT the
guests tables. My gut feeling is the former.
Which are your two types of Intel server? You say that you only see
this with 64bit Debian kernels? Another dimension here is the use of
PCID as a meltdown mitigation for 64bit PV guests.
Could you experiment with disabling PCID (`pcid=0` on the xen command
line) and seeing if that affects the reproducibility.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set
2018-11-25 14:48 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2018-11-25 16:29 ` Andy Smith
2018-11-25 17:14 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andy Smith @ 2018-11-25 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper; +Cc: xen-devel
Hi Andrew,
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 02:48:48PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> Which are your two types of Intel server?
7 of them have Xeon D-1540, 2 of them have Xeon E5-1680v4. I've
seen this issue on guests running on both kinds, and my reproducer
guest was moved from a production D-1540 server to a test E5-1680v4
and still suffered.
My only available test host at the moment is E5-1680v4.
> You say that you only see this with 64bit Debian kernels?
Yes, but this seems quite subtle. I've got one Debian stretch guest
where php-fpm crashes every time, and another Debian stretch guest
(unknown kernel) where a particular perl script has an assertion
failure in malloc.c every time. Apart from that across several
hundred other guests it's only been observed a handful of times in a
week and these times were all on 64-bit Debian jessie and stretch.
So with the limited data this could still be coincidence.
I have one guest administrator with a 64-bit Gentoo guest saying
they might have seen it once because gcc crashed during a
compilation, but I am still waiting for clarification on that one.
> Could you experiment with disabling PCID (`pcid=0` on the xen command
> line) and seeing if that affects the reproducibility.
I am unable to reproduce the problem with pcid=0. staging-4.10,
64-bit Debian PV guest with the kernel revision just before L1TF
fixes (linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 4.9.110-3+deb9u2). Xen dmesg does
say shadow paging is in effect.
Cheers,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set
2018-11-25 16:29 ` Andy Smith
@ 2018-11-25 17:14 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2018-11-25 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Smith; +Cc: xen-devel, Jan Beulich
On 25/11/2018 16:29, Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 02:48:48PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> Which are your two types of Intel server?
> 7 of them have Xeon D-1540, 2 of them have Xeon E5-1680v4. I've
> seen this issue on guests running on both kinds, and my reproducer
> guest was moved from a production D-1540 server to a test E5-1680v4
> and still suffered.
>
> My only available test host at the moment is E5-1680v4.
Thats fine. My question was more along the lines of "you presumably
have PCID?", which is Haswell and newer.
>
>> You say that you only see this with 64bit Debian kernels?
> Yes, but this seems quite subtle. I've got one Debian stretch guest
> where php-fpm crashes every time, and another Debian stretch guest
> (unknown kernel) where a particular perl script has an assertion
> failure in malloc.c every time. Apart from that across several
> hundred other guests it's only been observed a handful of times in a
> week and these times were all on 64-bit Debian jessie and stretch.
> So with the limited data this could still be coincidence.
TLB flushing bugs are very context sensitive. I can easily believe that
they are only manifesting in a subset of the actually-vulnerable cases.
> I have one guest administrator with a 64-bit Gentoo guest saying
> they might have seen it once because gcc crashed during a
> compilation, but I am still waiting for clarification on that one.
All other things being equal, I'd put that up to bleeding edge
software. As we have a line of investigation on the Debian side, lets
leave this for now to avoid complicating things.
>
>> Could you experiment with disabling PCID (`pcid=0` on the xen command
>> line) and seeing if that affects the reproducibility.
> I am unable to reproduce the problem with pcid=0. staging-4.10,
> 64-bit Debian PV guest with the kernel revision just before L1TF
> fixes (linux-image-4.9.0-7-amd64 4.9.110-3+deb9u2). Xen dmesg does
> say shadow paging is in effect.
Right, so it looks like we have a real bug with PCID and shadowed PV
guests. This will in practice affect migration, which also
(temporarily) makes use of shadowing.
I think the next step is to revisit the PCID implementation and double
check the safety considerations. I know it is little consolation at
this point, but the interaction with shadow guests was explicitly raised
during PCID's development, and we failed to identify any potential
problems (I honestly can't remember whether the consideration was only
for migration, or whether it was after we'd started working on PV-L1TF
by that point).
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-11-25 17:14 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-11-25 6:18 Sporadic PV guest malloc.c assertion failures and segfaults unless pv-l1tf=false is set Andy Smith
2018-11-25 9:14 ` Andy Smith
2018-11-25 14:48 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-11-25 16:29 ` Andy Smith
2018-11-25 17:14 ` Andrew Cooper
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.