Message-ID: <CA+res+SW7o4YpUtv4-UYXP4WSPm417tgow68YM7YjOEcZ5xO3w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 5 Dec 2019 10:51:18 +0100
From:   Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>
To:     Jack Wang <jack.wang.usish@...il.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.19 067/306] KVM: nVMX: move check_vmentry_postreqs()
 call to nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode()

Dan Rue <dan.rue@...aro.org> 于2019年12月4日周三 下午6:50写道：
>
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:40:04PM +0100, Jack Wang wrote:
> > Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> 于2019年11月27日周三 下午10:30写道：
> > >
> > > From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit 7671ce21b13b9596163a29f4712cb2451a9b97dc ]
> > >
> > > In preparation of supporting checkpoint/restore for nested state,
> > > commit ca0bde28f2ed ("kvm: nVMX: Split VMCS checks from nested_vmx_run()")
> > > modified check_vmentry_postreqs() to only perform the guest EFER
> > > consistency checks when nested_run_pending is true.  But, in the
> > > normal nested VMEntry flow, nested_run_pending is only set after
> > > check_vmentry_postreqs(), i.e. the consistency check is being skipped.
> > >
> > > Alternatively, nested_run_pending could be set prior to calling
> > > check_vmentry_postreqs() in nested_vmx_run(), but placing the
> > > consistency checks in nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode() allows us
> > > to split prepare_vmcs02() and interleave the preparation with
> > > the consistency checks without having to change the call sites
> > > of nested_vmx_enter_non_root_mode().  In other words, the rest
> > > of the consistency check code in nested_vmx_run() will be joining
> > > the postreqs checks in future patches.
> > >
> > > Fixes: ca0bde28f2ed ("kvm: nVMX: Split VMCS checks from nested_vmx_run()")
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
> > > Cc: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 10 +++-------
> > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > > index fe7fdd666f091..bdf019f322117 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> > > @@ -12694,6 +12694,9 @@ static int enter_vmx_non_root_mode(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 *exit_qual)
> > >         if (likely(!evaluate_pending_interrupts) && kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu))
> > >                 evaluate_pending_interrupts |= vmx_has_apicv_interrupt(vcpu);
> > >
> > > +       if (from_vmentry && check_vmentry_postreqs(vcpu, vmcs12, exit_qual))
> > > +               return EXIT_REASON_INVALID_STATE;
> > > +
> > >         enter_guest_mode(vcpu);
> > >
> > >         if (!(vmcs12->vm_entry_controls & VM_ENTRY_LOAD_DEBUG_CONTROLS))
> > > @@ -12836,13 +12839,6 @@ static int nested_vmx_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool launch)
> > >          */
> > >         skip_emulated_instruction(vcpu);
> > >
> > > -       ret = check_vmentry_postreqs(vcpu, vmcs12, &exit_qual);
> > > -       if (ret) {
> > > -               nested_vmx_entry_failure(vcpu, vmcs12,
> > > -                                        EXIT_REASON_INVALID_STATE, exit_qual);
> > > -               return 1;
> > > -       }
> > > -
> > >         /*
> > >          * We're finally done with prerequisite checking, and can start with
> > >          * the nested entry.
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This commit caused many kvm-unit-tests regression, cherry-pick
> > following commits from 4.20 fix the regression:
>
> Hi Jack - can you be more specific about the failing tests? What type of
> environment and which tests failed, which version of kvm-unit-tests? Do
> you have any logs available? I ask because we do run kvm-unit-tests on
> x86 and arm64 but we did not see these regressions.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
Hi Dan,

I'm running at kvm-unit-tests commit b1414c5f0142 ("x86: vmx: fix
required alignment for posted interrupt descriptor")

using "run_tests.sh -a -t -j8" with qemu-2.7.1

Left side has only 78 tests ok, and right side has 112 tests ok.
root@ib1:/home/gkim/pb-ltp/install/results# diff
kvm-unit-test--2019_12_02-13h_13m_50s.log
kvm-unit-test--2019_12_02-02h_12m_26s.log
2d1
< ok smptest
6c5
< ok vmexit_vmcall
---
> ok smptest
7a7
> ok vmexit_vmcall
10d9
< ok vmexit_ipi
11a11,12
> ok vmexit_ipi
> ok vmexit_tscdeadline
14d14
< ok vmexit_tscdeadline
16,18c16
< ok vmexit_tscdeadline_immed
< ok pku # SKIP
< ok emulator
---
> ok hypercall
19a18,19
> ok emulator
> ok pku # SKIP
21c21
< ok hypercall
---
> ok vmexit_tscdeadline_immed
27a28
> ok apic
29d29
< ok apic-split
31c31
< ok s3
---
> ok xsave
34d33
< ok xsave
35a35
> ok apic-split
37d36
< ok apic
38a38
> ok s3
40c40
< not ok vmx_null
---
> ok vmx_null
42d41
< not ok vmx
44d42
< ok vmx_test_vmptrld
45a44
> ok vmx_test_vmptrld
48d46
< ok access
50c48
< ok vmx_test_vmcs_lifecycle
---
> ok access
52c50,51
< not ok vmx_vmenter
---
> ok vmx_test_vmcs_lifecycle
> ok vmx_vmenter
54,72c53,72
< not ok vmx_preemption_timer
< not ok vmx_control_field_PAT
< not ok vmx_control_field_EFER
< not ok vmx_CR_shadowing
< not ok vmx_IO_bitmap
< not ok vmx_instruction_intercept
< not ok vmx_EPT_AD_disabled
< not ok vmx_EPT_AD_enabled
< not ok vmx_PML
< not ok vmx_VPID
< not ok vmx_interrupt
< not ok vmx_debug_controls
< not ok vmx_vmmcall
< not ok vmx_MSR_switch
< not ok vmx_disable_RDTSCP
< not ok vmx_int3
< not ok vmx_into
< not ok vmx_exit_monitor_from_l2_test
< not ok vmx_v2
---
> ok vmx_control_field_PAT
> ok vmx_control_field_EFER
> ok vmx_CR_shadowing
> ok vmx_preemption_timer
> ok vmx_IO_bitmap
> ok vmx_instruction_intercept
> ok kvmclock_test
> ok vmx_EPT_AD_disabled
> ok vmx_PML
> ok vmx_EPT_AD_enabled
> ok vmx_VPID
> ok vmx_interrupt
> ok vmx_debug_controls
> ok vmx_MSR_switch
> ok vmx_disable_RDTSCP
> ok vmx_vmmcall
> ok vmx_int3
> ok vmx_into
> ok vmx_v2
> ok vmx_exit_monitor_from_l2_test
80d79
< ok vmx_ept_access_test_reserved_bits # SKIP
82c81
< ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_ad_disabled # SKIP
---
> ok vmx_ept_access_test_reserved_bits # SKIP
85c84
< ok kvmclock_test
---
> ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_ad_disabled # SKIP
87d85
< ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_read_write # SKIP
88a87,88
> ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_read_write # SKIP
> ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_read_execute_ad_enabled # SKIP
91,92d90
< ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_read_execute_ad_enabled # SKIP
< ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_page_fault # SKIP
94,95c92,95
< not ok vmx_vmentry_movss_shadow_test
< not ok vmx_cr_load_test
---
> ok vmx_ept_access_test_paddr_not_present_page_fault # SKIP
> ok vmx_vmentry_movss_shadow_test
> ok vmx_cr_load_test
> ok vmx_nm_test
97,104c97,102
< not ok vmx_nm_test
< not ok vmx_pending_event_test
< not ok vmx_pending_event_hlt_test
< not ok vmx_store_tsc_test
< not ok vmx_store_tsc_test
< not ok vmx_db_test
< not ok vmx_nmi_window_test
< not ok vmx_intr_window_test
---
> ok vmx_pending_event_test
> ok vmx_pending_event_hlt_test
> ok vmx_store_tsc_test
> ok vmx_store_tsc_test
> ok vmx_db_test
> ok vmx_nmi_window_test
107,109c105,108
< not ok vmx_apic_passthrough
< not ok vmx_vmcs_shadow_test
< not ok vmx_apic_passthrough_thread
---
> ok vmx_intr_window_test
> ok vmx_apic_passthrough
> ok vmx_apic_passthrough_thread
> not ok vmx_controls
111d109
< not ok intel_iommu
113c111
< not ok vmx_controls
---
> not ok intel_iommu
117a116,117
> not ok vmx
> ok vmx_vmcs_shadow_test

Hope it helps.

Thanks,
Jack

Powered by blists - more mailing lists