From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1316C433EF for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:53:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241255AbiANNxP (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:53:15 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:8792 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230472AbiANNxN (ORCPT ); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 08:53:13 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 20EBveur020151; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:47 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : date : mime-version : subject : to : cc : references : from : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=vP1aoBsPQt/yrozo2sUvU5CVIot6dV2VEGneghSkLFA=; b=a2gFV4734kGqUgIHKXadnrCFSKuBjJRY30aUQdGCFiYF8jRsHV+z2mI4wFE/Vmth6kUs 8QUMtKN08iYUGQdeGav2yl4jGVMOnN+FjLbFBpgJ6dEmNOs7wsMT4y+PEc1wueG6Atxc OXnSBTyBBQbA8HCalgy5VAexQD8ps0se//ZDpVvQbn1K2qLNcATAExxwxxPYpHjsKd1u IS1l1Q16lhrtUXAVpb64mZZhXTVa4ROac7uK7SIt27/2EeBnhIyQDnzALcLTG4mxbb6L eHN77+UCRvY8NAuo6a9ZGGf68003niLfHTxMzqmoVo9J4NtX4+8u69ZsERMOzAndRSg7 ZA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3dk8rvj1er-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:46 +0000 Received: from m0098417.ppops.net (m0098417.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 20EDEb57026077; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:45 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3dk8rvj1e0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:45 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 20EDkqGP005393; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:43 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay13.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.198]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3df1vjxub1-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:43 +0000 Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.232]) by b06cxnps4076.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 20EDpeCG37093796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:40 GMT Received: from d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2808052051; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.171.88.24] (unknown [9.171.88.24]) by d06av21.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47C752050; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:51:38 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 14:51:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs Content-Language: en-US To: Mark Rutland Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com, alexandru.elisei@arm.com, anup.patel@wdc.com, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@wdc.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org, bp@alien8.de, catalin.marinas@arm.com, chenhuacai@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, frederic@kernel.org, gor@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, james.morse@arm.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au, nsaenzju@redhat.com, palmer@dabbelt.com, paulmck@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, will@kernel.org References: <20220111153539.2532246-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <127a6117-85fb-7477-983c-daf09e91349d@linux.ibm.com> From: Christian Borntraeger In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: V601sx0TRChMmHg9UgBYp6CkK53iWuCv X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: EIy8ZE84WROG9oqjCpjBq0scXVJmJ2Sk X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.816,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2022-01-14_05,2022-01-14_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 mlxlogscore=584 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 spamscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2201140090 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am 14.01.22 um 14:32 schrieb Mark Rutland: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 01:29:46PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> Am 14.01.22 um 13:19 schrieb Mark Rutland: >>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 04:20:07PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> Am 11.01.22 um 16:35 schrieb Mark Rutland: >>>>> Several architectures have latent bugs around guest entry/exit, most >>>>> notably: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Several architectures enable interrupts between guest_enter() and >>>>> guest_exit(). As this period is an RCU extended quiescent state (EQS) this >>>>> is unsound unless the irq entry code explicitly wakes RCU, which most >>>>> architectures only do for entry from usersapce or idle. >>>>> >>>>> I believe this affects: arm64, riscv, s390 >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure about powerpc. >>>>> >>>>> 2) Several architectures permit instrumentation of code between >>>>> guest_enter() and guest_exit(), e.g. KASAN, KCOV, KCSAN, etc. As >>>>> instrumentation may directly o indirectly use RCU, this has the same >>>>> problems as with interrupts. >>>>> >>>>> I believe this affects: arm64, mips, powerpc, riscv, s390 >>>>> >>>>> 3) Several architectures do not inform lockdep and tracing that >>>>> interrupts are enabled during the execution of the guest, or do so in >>>>> an incorrect order. Generally >>>>> this means that logs will report IRQs being masked for much longer >>>>> than is actually the case, which is not ideal for debugging. I don't >>>>> know whether this affects the correctness of lockdep. >>>>> >>>>> I believe this affects: arm64, mips, powerpc, riscv, s390 >>>>> >>>>> This was previously fixed for x86 specifically in a series of commits: >>>>> >>>>> 87fa7f3e98a1310e ("x86/kvm: Move context tracking where it belongs") >>>>> 0642391e2139a2c1 ("x86/kvm/vmx: Add hardirq tracing to guest enter/exit") >>>>> 9fc975e9efd03e57 ("x86/kvm/svm: Add hardirq tracing on guest enter/exit") >>>>> 3ebccdf373c21d86 ("x86/kvm/vmx: Move guest enter/exit into .noinstr.text") >>>>> 135961e0a7d555fc ("x86/kvm/svm: Move guest enter/exit into .noinstr.text") >>>>> 160457140187c5fb ("KVM: x86: Defer vtime accounting 'til after IRQ handling") >>>>> bc908e091b326467 ("KVM: x86: Consolidate guest enter/exit logic to common helpers") >>>>> >>>>> But other architectures were left broken, and the infrastructure for >>>>> handling this correctly is x86-specific. >>>>> >>>>> This series introduces generic helper functions which can be used to >>>>> handle the problems above, and migrates architectures over to these, >>>>> fixing the latent issues. >>>>> >>>>> I wasn't able to figure my way around powerpc and s390, so I have not >>>> >>>> I think 2 later patches have moved the guest_enter/exit a bit out. >>>> Does this make the s390 code clearer? >>> >>> Yes; that's much simpler to follow! >>> >>> One major thing I wasn't sure about for s390 is the sequence: >>> >>> guest_enter_irqoff(); // Enters an RCU EQS >>> ... >>> local_irq_enable(); >>> ... >>> sie64a(...); >>> ... >>> local_irq_disable(); >>> ... >>> guest_exit_irqoff(); // Exits an RCU EQS >>> >>> ... since if an IRQ is taken between local_irq_{enable,disable}(), RCU won't be >>> watching, and I couldn't spot whether your regular IRQ entry logic would wake >>> RCU in this case, or whether there was something else I'm missing that saves >>> you here. >>> >>> For other architectures, including x86 and arm64, we enter the guest with IRQs >>> masked and return from the guest with IRQs masked, and don't actually take IRQs >>> until we unmask them in the host, after the guest_exit_*() logic has woken RCU >>> and so on. >>> >>> I wasn't able to find documentation on the semantics of SIE, so I couldn't spot >>> whether the local_irq_{enable,disable}() calls were necessary, or could be >>> removed. >> >> We run the SIE instruction with interrupts enabled. SIE is interruptible. >> The disable/enable pairs are just because guest_enter/exit_irqoff() require them. > > What I was trying to figure out was when an interrupt is taken between > guest_enter_irqoff() and guest_exit_irqoff(), where is RCU woken? I couldn't > spot that in the s390 entry code (probably simply because I'm not familiar with > it), and so AFAICT that means IRQ code could run without RCU watching, which > would cause things to explode. > > On other architectures that problem is avoided because IRQs asserted during the > guest cause a specific guest exit rather than a regular IRQ exception, and the > HW enables/disables IRQs when entering/exiting the guest, so the host can leave > IRQs masked across guest_enter_irqoff()..guest_exit_irqoff(). > > Am I right in understanding that SIE itself won't enable (host) interrupts > while running the guest, and so it *needs* to be run with interrupts already > enabled? yes > >> One thing to be aware of: in our entry.S - after an interrupt - we leave SIE by >> setting the return address of the interrupt after the sie instruction so that we >> get back into this __vcpu_run loop to check for signals and so. > > Just to check, that's after the IRQ handler runs, right? and yes.