From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 00/12] KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 00:31:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220921003201.1441511-1-seanjc@google.com> (raw)
Non-x86 folks, there's nothing interesting to see here, y'all got pulled
in because removing KVM_REQ_UNHALT requires deleting kvm_clear_request()
from arch code.
Note, this based on:
https://github.com/sean-jc/linux.git tags/kvm-x86-6.1-1
to pre-resolve conflicts with the event/exception cleanups in there.
In Paolo's words...
The following backtrace:
[ 1355.807187] kvm_vcpu_map+0x159/0x190 [kvm]
[ 1355.807628] nested_svm_vmexit+0x4c/0x7f0 [kvm_amd]
[ 1355.808036] ? kvm_vcpu_block+0x54/0xa0 [kvm]
[ 1355.808450] svm_check_nested_events+0x97/0x390 [kvm_amd]
[ 1355.808920] kvm_check_nested_events+0x1c/0x40 [kvm]
[ 1355.809396] kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable+0x4e/0x190 [kvm]
[ 1355.809892] kvm_vcpu_check_block+0x4f/0x100 [kvm]
[ 1355.811259] kvm_vcpu_block+0x6b/0xa0 [kvm]
can occur due to kmap being called in non-sleepable (!TASK_RUNNING) context.
The fix is to extend kvm_x86_ops->nested_ops.hv_timer_pending() to cover
all events not already checked in kvm_arch_vcpu_is_runnable(), and then
get rid of the annoying (and wrong) call to kvm_check_nested_events()
from kvm_vcpu_check_block().
Beware, this is not a complete fix, because kvm_guest_apic_has_interrupt()
might still _read_ memory from non-sleepable context. The fix here is
probably to make kvm_arch_vcpu_is_runnable() return -EAGAIN, and in that
case do a round of kvm_vcpu_check_block() polling in sleepable context.
Nevertheless, it is a good start as it pushes the vmexit into vcpu_block().
The series also does a small cleanup pass on kvm_vcpu_check_block(),
removing KVM_REQ_UNHALT in favor of simply calling kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable()
again. Now that kvm_check_nested_events() is not called anymore by
kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(), it is much easier to see that KVM will never
consume the event that caused kvm_vcpu_has_events() to return true,
and therefore it is safe to evaluate it again.
The alternative of propagating the return value of
kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() up to kvm_vcpu_{block,halt}() is inferior
because it does not quite get right the edge cases where the vCPU becomes
runnable right before schedule() or right after kvm_vcpu_check_block().
While these edge cases are unlikely to truly matter in practice, it is
also pointless to get them "wrong".
v4:
- Make event request if INIT/SIPI is pending when GIF=>1 (SVM) and
on nested VM-Enter (VMX).
- Make an event request at VMXOFF iff it's necessary.
- Keep the INIT/SIPI pending vs. blocked checks separate (for the
above nSVM/nVMX fixes).
- Check the result of kvm_check_nested_events() in vcpu_block().
- Rename INIT/SIPI helpers (hopefully we'll eventually rename all of
the related collateral, e.g. "pending_events" is so misleading).
- Drop pending INIT/SIPI snaphsot to avoid creating weird, conflicting
code when kvm_check_nested_events() is called by vcpu_block().
v3:
- https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220822170659.2527086-1-pbonzini@redhat.com
- do not propagate the return value of kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() up to
kvm_vcpu_{block,halt}()
- move and reformat the comment in vcpu_block()
move KVM_REQ_UNHALT removal last
Paolo Bonzini (5):
KVM: x86: make vendor code check for all nested events
KVM: x86: lapic does not have to process INIT if it is blocked
KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block()
KVM: mips, x86: do not rely on KVM_REQ_UNHALT
KVM: remove KVM_REQ_UNHALT
Sean Christopherson (7):
KVM: nVMX: Make an event request when pending an MTF nested VM-Exit
KVM: x86: Rename and expose helper to detect if INIT/SIPI are allowed
KVM: x86: Rename kvm_apic_has_events() to make it INIT/SIPI specific
KVM: SVM: Make an event request if INIT or SIPI is pending when GIF is
set
KVM: nVMX: Make an event request if INIT or SIPI is pending on
VM-Enter
KVM: nVMX: Make event request on VMXOFF iff INIT/SIPI is pending
KVM: x86: Don't snapshot pending INIT/SIPI prior to checking nested
events
Documentation/virt/kvm/vcpu-requests.rst | 28 +--------------
arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 1 -
arch/mips/kvm/emulate.c | 6 ++--
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr.c | 1 -
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_pr_papr.c | 1 -
arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 1 -
arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 1 -
arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_insn.c | 1 -
arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 2 --
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 38 ++++++--------------
arch/x86/kvm/lapic.h | 9 ++++-
arch/x86/kvm/svm/svm.c | 3 +-
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/nested.c | 33 +++++++++--------
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 6 ++--
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 46 +++++++++++++++---------
arch/x86/kvm/x86.h | 5 ---
arch/x86/kvm/xen.c | 1 -
include/linux/kvm_host.h | 3 +-
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 4 +--
20 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-)
base-commit: 5df50a4a9b60afba4dd2be76d0f0fb8ae8c9beab
--
2.37.3.968.ga6b4b080e4-goog
next reply other threads:[~2022-09-21 0:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-21 0:31 Sean Christopherson [this message]
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 01/12] KVM: x86: make vendor code check for all nested events Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 02/12] KVM: nVMX: Make an event request when pending an MTF nested VM-Exit Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 03/12] KVM: x86: Rename and expose helper to detect if INIT/SIPI are allowed Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 04/12] KVM: x86: Rename kvm_apic_has_events() to make it INIT/SIPI specific Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 05/12] KVM: x86: lapic does not have to process INIT if it is blocked Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 06/12] KVM: SVM: Make an event request if INIT or SIPI is pending when GIF is set Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 07/12] KVM: nVMX: Make an event request if INIT or SIPI is pending on VM-Enter Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 08/12] KVM: nVMX: Make event request on VMXOFF iff INIT/SIPI is pending Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 09/12] KVM: x86: Don't snapshot pending INIT/SIPI prior to checking nested events Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:31 ` [PATCH v4 10/12] KVM: x86: never write to memory from kvm_vcpu_check_block() Sean Christopherson
2023-12-07 1:03 ` Jim Mattson
2023-12-07 16:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-12-10 22:52 ` Jim Mattson
2023-12-12 15:28 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-12-13 22:25 ` Maxim Levitsky
2023-12-13 22:31 ` Jim Mattson
2023-12-13 22:44 ` Maxim Levitsky
2023-12-13 22:59 ` Sean Christopherson
2022-09-21 0:32 ` [PATCH v4 11/12] KVM: mips, x86: do not rely on KVM_REQ_UNHALT Sean Christopherson
2022-09-22 13:17 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2022-09-21 0:32 ` [PATCH v4 12/12] KVM: remove KVM_REQ_UNHALT Sean Christopherson
2022-09-22 14:52 ` Marc Zyngier
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=20220921003201.1441511-1-seanjc@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=anup@brainfault.org \
--cc=aou@eecs.berkeley.edu \
--cc=atishp@atishpatra.org \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=chenhuacai@kernel.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvm-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mlevitsk@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
--cc=paul.walmsley@sifive.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).