linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH linux v2 0/9] xen: pvhvm: support bootup on secondary vCPUs

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <57961D84.1090503@citrix.com>
Date:	Mon, 25 Jul 2016 15:09:08 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
	Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
CC:	Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
	Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, <x86@...nel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH linux v2 0/9] xen: pvhvm: support bootup on
 secondary vCPUs

On 25/07/16 15:01, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 25/07/16 14:39, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>>
>>> On 25/07/16 13:38, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/16 16:56, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>>> It may happen that Xen's and Linux's ideas of vCPU id diverge. In
>>>>> particular, when we crash on a secondary vCPU we may want to do kdump
>>>>> and unlike plain kexec where we do migrate_to_reboot_cpu() we try
>>>>> booting
>>>>> on the vCPU which crashed. This doesn't work very well for PVHVM
>>>>> guests as
>>>>> we have a number of hypercalls where we pass vCPU id as a
>>>>> parameter. These
>>>>> hypercalls either fail or do something unexpected. To solve the
>>>>> issue we
>>>>> need to have a mapping between Linux's and Xen's vCPU ids.
>>>>>
>>>>> This series solves the issue for x86 PVHVM guests. PV guests don't
>>>>> (and
>>>>> probably won't) support kdump so I always assume Xen's vCPU id ==
>>>>> Linux's
>>>>> vCPU id. ARM guests will probably need to get proper mapping once
>>>>> we start
>>>>> supporting kexec/kdump there.
>>>>
>>>> Applied to for-linus-4.8, thanks.
>>>
>>> It would have been nice to send a ping before applying. This patch
>>> series is containing Xen ARM code which has not been acked by Stefano,
>>> nor had feedback from ARM side.
>>>
>>> For instance given that all the hypercalls are representing a "vcpu
>>> id" using "uint32_t" it is a bit weird to use "int" to define
>>> xen_vcpu_id (see patch #3).
>>
>> CPU id is usually 'int' in linux and now we pass it to all
>> hypercalls as it is.
> 
> Well, we need to differentiate between the internal representation of
> the CPU which is based on the boot order and the logical CPU ID. For
> instance on ARM, the logical CPU ID may not be contiguous nor 0 for the
> first CPU.
> 
> From my understanding, the macros in patch #3 will be used at the last
> minute when prepare the hypercall data. IHMO this is very similar to a
> logical ID and defined as uint32_t by the hypercall ABI.
> 
> Although, I agree that currently we use the internal CPU id on ARM which
> is very unfortunate because this value is based on the order of the
> nodes in the device tree.
> 
> One way to abolish it on ARM would be to use the MPIDR (or at least a
> part) for the VCPU ID.
> 
>> It is a bit more convenient in the mapping I
>> introduce as we can set it to a negative value to indicate there is no
>> mapping available. I can definitely change that and use something like
>> U32_MAX-1 to instead but I'm not sure it is worth it...
> 
> I looked at the definition of cpu_acpi_id on x86 which return
> x86_cpu_to_acpiid that has been defined to an uint32_t.
> 
> So you are assuming that it will never be possible to have an ID >
> 0x80000000.
> 
> Also, this may not be true on ARM depending how we define the VCPU
> mapping. We could decide to use the MPIDR which is in this case may be
> considered as "negative".

If you want to change how you number vCPUs on ARM in the future, you can
(if necessary) change the type of this per-cpu variable as well.

David