linux-kernel - Re: Unexpected interrupt received in Guest OS when booting after "system

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: <ad743120-8d9b-57e1-ef19-657047d6ccf8@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:54:49 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Heyi Guo <guoheyi@...wei.com>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        wanghaibin 00208455 <wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: Unexpected interrupt received in Guest OS when booting after
 "system_reset"

On 29/03/2019 09:19, Heyi Guo wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> The patch works. I tested for 1.5 hour and 52 VM resets. There were
> 16 times that a virtual LPI left in the ap_list (seen by an
> additional printk) during reset and we never saw "Unexpected
> interrupt received" any more.


Thanks for testing, much appreciated.

> Just a minor comment: how about replacing /vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu./ with
> /vgic_cpu->/ in the lock/unlock code line, to reduce some words?

Well, as I said, the patch is wrong in other ways, so I wouldn't bother
with that. It only serves as a test for my theory.

I think I'm slowly warming up to you initial proposal to hook things
into the PROPBASER/PENDBASER registers, as the LPIs do have a life
outside of the ITS itself.

I'll try to respin something next week.

Thanks,

	M.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Heyi
> 
> On 2019/3/29 9:19, Heyi Guo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2019/3/29 1:18, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> [Please do not send HTML emails]
>> Sorry; will keep in mind next time :)
>>>
>>> On 28/03/2019 15:44, Heyi Guo wrote:
>>>> Hi Marc and Christoffer,
>>>>
>>>> When we issue "system_reset" from qemu monitor to a running VM, guest
>>>> Linux will occasionally get "Unexpected interrupt" after rebooting, with
>>>> kernel message at the bottom.
>>>>
>>>> After some investigation, we found it might be caused by the
>>>> preservation of virtual LPI during system reset: it seems the virtual
>>>> LPI remains in the ap_list during VM reset, as well as its "enabled" and
>>>> "pending_latch" status, and this causes the virtual LPI to be injected
>>>> wrongly after VCPU reboots and enables interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> We propose to clear "enabled" flag of virtual LPI when PROPBASER (or
>>>> GICR_CTRL) of virtual GICR is written to 0, and update virtual LPI
>>>> properties when GICR_CTRL.enableLPIs is set to 1 again.
>>>>
>>>> Any advice? Or did we miss something?
>>> We're clearly missing a trick here, but I'm not convinced of your
>>> approach.
>> To be honest, we were not fully convinced by ourselves either. I was worrying about guest switching GICR_CTRL or GICR_PROPBASER at runtime which probably causes issue for our rough approach.
>>
>>> What should happend is that the redistributors should be reset
>>> as well, and that this should recall any LPI that has been made pending.
>>> Unfortunately, we don't seem to have such code in place, which is
>>> embarrassing.
>>>
>>> Can you give the following, untested patch a go? It isn't right either,
>>> but it should have the right effect. If you confirm that it solves your
>>> problem, we can look at adding the right hooks...
>> Thanks, I'll test this and get back to you.
>> Heyi
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>     M.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>> index ab3f47745d9c..bd9a9250f323 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
>>> @@ -2403,8 +2403,32 @@ static int vgic_its_commit_v0(struct vgic_its *its)
>>>       return 0;
>>>   }
>>>   +static void vgic_nuke_pending_lpis(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>>> +    struct vgic_irq *irq, *tmp;
>>> +    unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>> +    list_for_each_entry_safe(irq, tmp, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) {
>>> +        if (irq->intid >= VGIC_MIN_LPI) {
>>> +            list_del(&irq->ap_list);
>>> +            vgic_put_irq(vcpu->kvm, irq);
>>> +        }
>>> +    }
>>> +
>>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, flags);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static void vgic_its_reset(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its)
>>>   {
>>> +    struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>>> +    int c;
>>> +
>>> +    kvm_for_each_vcpu(c, vcpu, kvm)
>>> +        vgic_nuke_pending_lpis(vcpu);
>>> +
>>>       /* We need to keep the ABI specific field values */
>>>       its->baser_coll_table &= ~GITS_BASER_VALID;
>>>       its->baser_device_table &= ~GITS_BASER_VALID;
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> .
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...