[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ftek9ngq.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2020 16:47:01 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
kvm list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/kvm: Disable KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 6:26 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>> + /*
>> + * We do not set KVM_ASYNC_PF_SEND_ALWAYS. With the current
>> + * KVM paravirt ABI, the following scenario is possible:
>> + *
>> + * #PF: async page fault (KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NOT_PRESENT)
>> + * NMI before CR2 or KVM_PF_REASON_PAGE_NOT_PRESENT
>> + * NMI accesses user memory, e.g. due to perf
>> + * #PF: normal page fault
>> + * #PF reads CR2 and apf_reason -- apf_reason should be 0
>> + *
>> + * outer #PF reads CR2 and apf_reason -- apf_reason should be
>> + * KVM_PV_REASON_PAGE_NOT_PRESENT
>> + *
>> + * There is no possible way that both reads of CR2 and
>> + * apf_reason get the correct values. Fixing this would
>> + * require paravirt ABI changes.
>> + */
>> +
>
> Upon re-reading my own comment, I think the problem is real, but I
> don't think my patch fixes it. The outer #PF could just as easily
> have come from user mode. We may actually need the NMI code (and
> perhaps MCE and maybe #DB too) to save, clear, and restore apf_reason.
> If we do this, then maybe CPL0 async PFs are actually okay, but the
> semantics are so poorly defined that I'm not very confident about
> that.
I think even with the current mode this is fixable on the host side when
it keeps track of the state.
The host knows exactly when it injects a async PF and it can store CR2
and reason of that async PF in flight.
On the next VMEXIT it checks whether apf_reason is 0. If apf_reason is 0
then it knows that the guest has read CR2 and apf_reason. All good
nothing to worry about.
If not it needs to be careful.
As long as the apf_reason of the last async #PF is not cleared by the
guest no new async #PF can be injected. That's already correct because
in that case IF==0 which prevents a nested async #PF.
If MCE, NMI trigger a real pagefault then the #PF injection needs to
clear apf_reason and set the correct CR2. When that #PF returns then the
old CR2 and apf_reason need to be restored.
I tried to figure out whether any of this logic exists in the KVM code,
but I got completely lost in that code. Maybe I try later today again.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists