All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "open list:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)"
	<x86@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: never clear irr_pending in kvm_apic_update_apicv
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:20:00 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fbf3e1665357d9517015ad49eee0c9825ed876d4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <636dd644-8160-645a-ce5a-f4eb344f001c@redhat.com>

On Fri, 2021-12-10 at 13:07 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/9/21 12:54, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > It is possible that during the AVIC incomplete IPI vmexit,
> > its handler will set irr_pending to true,
> > but the target vCPU will still see the IRR bit not set,
> > due to the apparent lack of memory ordering between CPU's vIRR write
> > that is supposed to happen prior to the AVIC incomplete IPI
> > vmexit and the write of the irr_pending in that handler.
> 
> Are you sure about this?  Store-to-store ordering should be 
> guaranteed---if not by the architecture---by existing memory barriers 
> between vmrun returning and avic_incomplete_ipi_interception().  For 
> example, srcu_read_lock implies an smp_mb().
> 
> Even more damning: no matter what internal black magic the processor 
> could be using to write to IRR, the processor needs to order the writes 
> against reads of IsRunning on processors without the erratum.  That 
> would be equivalent to flushing the store buffer, and it would imply 
> that the write of vIRR is ordered before the write to irr_pending.
> 
> Paolo
> 
Yes I almost 100% sure now that this patch is wrong.
the code was just seeing irr_pending true because it is set
to true while APICv/AVIC is use, and was not seeing yet the vIRR bits,
because they didn't arrive yet. This this patch isn't needed.

Thanks again for help!
I am testing your version of fixes to avic inhibition races,
and then I'll send a new version of these patches.

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky


  reply	other threads:[~2021-12-10 12:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-09 11:54 [PATCH 0/6] RFC: KVM: SVM: Allow L1's AVIC to co-exist with nesting Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 1/6] KVM: SVM: allow to force AVIC to be enabled Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 2/6] KVM: x86: add a tracepoint for APICv/AVIC interrupt delivery Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 3/6] KVM: SVM: fix AVIC race of host->guest IPI delivery vs AVIC inhibition Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 14:11   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-09 14:26     ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 15:27       ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-09 15:33         ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 15:35           ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 4/6] KVM: SVM: fix races in the AVIC incomplete IPI delivery to vCPUs Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 15:38   ` Sean Christopherson
2021-12-10 11:37     ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: never clear irr_pending in kvm_apic_update_apicv Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 14:12   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-09 15:03     ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-10 12:07   ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-10 12:20     ` Maxim Levitsky [this message]
2021-12-10 12:47       ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-10 13:03         ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-12-10 13:10           ` Maxim Levitsky
2021-12-09 11:54 ` [PATCH 6/6] KVM: SVM: allow AVIC to co-exist with a nested guest running Maxim Levitsky

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fbf3e1665357d9517015ad49eee0c9825ed876d4.camel@redhat.com \
    --to=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.