Message-ID: <20190926101347.GD28704@reaktio.net>
Date:   Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:13:47 +0300
From:   Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@....fi>
To:     "Spassov, Stanislav" <stanspas@...zon.de>
Cc:     Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>, "jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
        "sstabellini@...nel.org" <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "baijiaju1990@...il.com" <baijiaju1990@...il.com>,
        "jbeulich@...e.com" <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        "xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
        "boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        "Woodhouse, David" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
        "roger.pau@...rix.com" <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: xen-pciback: Reset MSI-X state when
 exposing a device

Hello Stanislav,

On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 11:28:20PM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:02:24AM +0000, Spassov, Stanislav wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:54, Chao Gao wrote:
> >>On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:54:52AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>> On 13.12.18 at 04:46, <chao.gao@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:21:39AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12.12.18 at 16:18, <chao.gao@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:51:01AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 12.12.18 at 08:06, <chao.gao@...el.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:01:33AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>On 12/5/18 4:32 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:19:17AM +0800, Chao Gao wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I find some pass-thru devices don't work any more across guest reboot.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Assigning it to another guest also meets the same issue. And the only
> >>>>>>>>>>> way to make it work again is un-binding and binding it to pciback.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Someone reported this issue one year ago [1]. More detail also can be
> >>>>>>>>>>> found in [2].
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The root-cause is Xen's internal MSI-X state isn't reset properly
> >>>>>>>>>>> during reboot or re-assignment. In the above case, Xen set maskall bit
> >>>>>>>>>>> to mask all MSI interrupts after it detected a potential security
> >>>>>>>>>>> issue. Even after device reset, Xen didn't reset its internal maskall
> >>>>>>>>>>> bit. As a result, maskall bit would be set again in next write to
> >>>>>>>>>>> MSI-X message control register.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Given that PHYSDEVOPS_prepare_msix() also triggers Xen resetting MSI-X
> >>>>>>>>>>> internal state of a device, we employ it to fix this issue rather than
> >>>>>>>>>>> introducing another dedicated sub-hypercall.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Note that PHYSDEVOPS_release_msix() will fail if the mapping between
> >>>>>>>>>>> the device's msix and pirq has been created. This limitation prevents
> >>>>>>>>>>> us calling this function when detaching a device from a guest during
> >>>>>>>>>>> guest shutdown. Thus it is called right before calling
> >>>>>>>>>>> PHYSDEVOPS_prepare_msix().
> >>>>>>>>>> s/PHYSDEVOPS/PHYSDEVOP/ (no final S). And then I would also drop the
> >>>>>>>>>> () at the end of the hypercall name since it's not a function.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm also wondering why the release can't be done when the device is
> >>>>>>>>>> detached from the guest (or the guest has been shut down). This makes
> >>>>>>>>>> me worry about the raciness of the attach/detach procedure: if there's
> >>>>>>>>>> a state where pciback assumes the device has been detached from the
> >>>>>>>>>> guest, but there are still pirqs bound, an attempt to attach to
> >>>>>>>>>> another guest in such state will fail.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I wonder whether this additional reset functionality could be done out
> >>>>>>>>>of xen_pcibk_xenbus_remove(). We first do a (best effort) device reset
> >>>>>>>>>and then do the extra things that are not properly done there.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> No. It cannot be done in xen_pcibk_xenbus_remove() without modifying
> >>>>>>>> the handler of PHYSDEVOP_release_msix. To do a successful Xen internal
> >>>>>>>> MSI-X state reset, PHYSDEVOP_{release, prepare}_msix should be finished
> >>>>>>>> without error. But ATM, xen expects that no msi is bound to pirq when
> >>>>>>>> doing PHYSDEVOP_release_msix. Otherwise it fails with error code -EBUSY.
> >>>>>>>> However, the expectation isn't guaranteed in xen_pcibk_xenbus_remove().
> >>>>>>>> In some cases, if qemu fails to unmap MSIs, MSIs are unmapped by Xen
> >>>>>>>> at last minute, which happens after device reset in 
> >>>>>>>> xen_pcibk_xenbus_remove().
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>But that may need taking care of: I don't think it is a good idea to have
> >>>>>>>anything left from the prior owning domain when the device gets reset.
> >>>>>>>I.e. left over IRQ bindings should perhaps be forcibly cleared before
> >>>>>>>invoking the reset;
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Agree. How about pciback to track the established IRQ bindings? Then
> >>>>>> pciback can clear irq binding before invoking the reset.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>How would pciback even know of those mappings, when it's qemu
> >>>>>who establishes (and manages) them?
> >>>> 
> >>>> I meant to expose some interfaces from pciback. And pciback serves
> >>>> as the proxy of IRQ (un)binding APIs.
> >>>
> >>>If at all possible we should avoid having to change more parties (qemu,
> >>>libxc, kernel, hypervisor) than really necessary. Remember that such
> >>>a bug fix may want backporting, and making sure affected people have
> >>>all relevant components updated is increasingly difficult with their
> >>>number growing.
> >>>
> >>>>>>>in fact I'd expect this to happen in the course of
> >>>>>>>domain destruction, and I'd expect the device reset to come after the
> >>>>>>>domain was cleaned up. Perhaps simply an ordering issue in the tool
> >>>>>>>stack?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I don't think reversing the sequences of device reset and domain
> >>>>>> destruction would be simple. Furthermore, during device hot-unplug,
> >>>>>> device reset is done when the owner is alive. So if we use domain
> >>>>>> destruction to enforce all irq binding cleared, in theory, it won't be
> >>>>>> applicable to hot-unplug case (if qemu's hot-unplug logic is
> >>>>>> compromised).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Even in the hot-unplug case the tool stack could issue unbind
> >>>>>requests, behind the back of the possibly compromised qemu,
> >>>>>once neither the guest nor qemu have access to the device
> >>>>>anymore.
> >>>> 
> >>>> But currently, tool stack doesn't know the remaining IRQ bindings.
> >>>> If tool stack can maintaine IRQ binding information of a pass-thru
> >>>> device (stored in Xenstore?), we can come up with a clean solution
> >>>> without modifying linux kernel and Xen.
> >>>
> >>>If there's no way for the tool stack to either find out the bindings
> >>>or "blindly" issue unbind requests (accepting them to fail), then a
> >>>"wildcard" unbind operation may want adding. Or, perhaps even
> >>>better, XEN_DOMCTL_deassign_device could unbind anything left
> >>>in place for the specified device.
> >>
> >>Good idea. I will take this advice.
> >>
> >>Thanks
> >>Chao
> >
> >I am having the same issue, and cannot find a fix in either xen-pciback or the Xen codebase.
> >Was a solution ever pushed as a result of this thread?
> >
> 
> I submitted patches [1] to Xen community. But I didn't get it merged.
> We made a change in device driver to disable MSI-X during guest OS
> shutdown to mitigate the issue. But when guest or qemu was crashed, we
> encountered this issue again. I have no plan to get back to these
> patches. But if you want to fix the issue completely along what the
> patches below did, please go ahead.
> 
> [1]: https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2019-01/msg01227.html
> 
> Thanks
> Chao
> 

Stanislav: Are you able to continue the work with these patches, to get them merged? 


Thanks,

-- Pasi

Powered by blists - more mailing lists