[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200516065431.GB25771@zn.tnic>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 08:54:31 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Cc: Jue Wang <juew@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Don't try to change poison pages to uncacheable
in a guest
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:46:48AM -0700, Tony Luck wrote:
> An interesting thing happened when a guest Linux instance took
> a machine check. The VMM unmapped the bad page from guest physical
> space and passed the machine check to the guest.
>
> Linux took all the normal actions to offline the page from the process
> that was using it. But then guest Linux crashed because it said there
> was a second machine check inside the kernel with this stack trace:
>
> do_memory_failure
> set_mce_nospec
> set_memory_uc
> _set_memory_uc
> change_page_attr_set_clr
> cpa_flush
> clflush_cache_range_opt
Maybe I don't see it but how can clflush_cache_range_opt() call
cpa_flush() ?
> This was odd, because a CLFLUSH instruction shouldn't raise a machine
> check (it isn't consuming the data). Further investigation showed that
> the VMM had passed in another machine check because is appeared that the
> guest was accessing the bad page.
This is where you lost me - if the VMM unmaps the page during the first
MCE, how can the guest even attempt to touch it and do this stack trace
above?
/me is confused.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists