Message-ID: <1593464072.34968499@apps.rackspace.com>
Date:   Mon, 29 Jun 2020 16:54:32 -0400 (EDT)
From:   "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...pplum.com>
To:     "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "Sean Christopherson" <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
        "X86 ML" <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "Allison Randal" <allison@...utok.net>,
        "Enrico Weigelt" <info@...ux.net>,
        "Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Kate Stewart" <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        "Martin Molnar" <martin.molnar.programming@...il.com>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
        "Alexandre Chartre" <alexandre.chartre@...cle.com>,
        "Jann Horn" <jannh@...gle.com>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        "LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix undefined operation VMXOFF during reboot and crash

Simple question for those on the To: and CC: list here. Should I abandon any hope of this patch being accepted? It's been a long time.

The non-response after I acknowledged that this was discovered by when working on a personal, non-commercial research project - which is "out-of-tree" (apparently dirty words on LKML) has me thinking my contribution is unwanted. That's fine, I suppose. I can maintain this patch out-of-tree as well.
I did incorporate all the helpful suggestions I received in this second patch, and given some encouragement, will happily submit a revised v3 if there is any likelihood of acceptance. I'm wary of doing more radical changes (like combining emergency and normal paths).


On Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:59am, "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...pplum.com> said:

> Correction to my comment below.
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:45am, "David P. Reed" <dpreed@...pplum.com> said:
> 
>> [Sorry: this is resent because my mailer included HTML, rejected by LKML]
>> Thanks for the response, Sean ... I had thought everyone was too busy to follow
>> up
>> from the first version.
>>  
>> I confess I'm not sure why this should be broken up into a patch series, given
>> that it is so very small and is all aimed at the same category of bug.
>>  
>> And the "emergency" path pre-existed, I didn't want to propose removing it, since
>> I assumed it was there for a reason. I didn't want to include my own judgement as
>> to whether there should only be one path. (I'm pretty sure I didn't find a VMXOFF
>> in KVM separately from the instance in this include file, but I will check).
> Just checked. Yes, the kvm code's handling of VMXOFF is separate, and though it
> uses exception masking, seems to do other things, perhaps related to nested KVM,
> but I haven't studied the deep logic of KVM nesting.
> 
>>  
>> A question: if I make it a series, I have to test each patch doesn't break
>> something individually, in order to handle the case where one patch is accepted
>> and the others are not. Do I need to test each individual patch thoroughly as an
>> independent patch against all those cases?
>> I know the combination don't break anything and fixes the issues I've discovered
>> by testing all combinations (and I've done some thorough testing of panics,
>> oopses
>> crashes, kexec, ... under all combinations of CR4.VMXE enablement and crash
>> source
>> to verify the fix fixes the problem's manifestations and to verify that it
>> doesn't
>> break any of the working paths.
>>  
>> That said, I'm willing to do a v3 "series" based on these suggestions if it will
>> smooth its acceptance. If it's not going to get accepted after doing that, my
>> motivation is flagging.
>> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:06am, "Sean Christopherson"
>> <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:48:18PM -0400, David P. Reed wrote:
>>> > -/** Disable VMX on the current CPU
>>> > +/* Disable VMX on the current CPU
>>> > *
>>> > - * vmxoff causes a undefined-opcode exception if vmxon was not run
>>> > - * on the CPU previously. Only call this function if you know VMX
>>> > - * is enabled.
>>> > + * vmxoff causes an undefined-opcode exception if vmxon was not run
>>> > + * on the CPU previously. Only call this function directly if you know VMX
>>> > + * is enabled *and* CPU is in VMX root operation.
>>> > */
>>> > static inline void cpu_vmxoff(void)
>>> > {
>>> > - asm volatile ("vmxoff");
>>> > + asm volatile ("vmxoff" ::: "cc", "memory"); /* clears all flags on success
>>> */
>>> > cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_VMXE);
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > @@ -47,17 +47,35 @@ static inline int cpu_vmx_enabled(void)
>>> > return __read_cr4() & X86_CR4_VMXE;
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > -/** Disable VMX if it is enabled on the current CPU
>>> > - *
>>> > - * You shouldn't call this if cpu_has_vmx() returns 0.
>>> > +/*
>>> > + * Safely disable VMX root operation if active
>>> > + * Note that if CPU is not in VMX root operation this
>>> > + * VMXOFF will fault an undefined operation fault,
>>> > + * so use the exception masking facility to handle that RARE
>>> > + * case.
>>> > + * You shouldn't call this directly if cpu_has_vmx() returns 0
>>> > + */
>>> > +static inline void cpu_vmxoff_safe(void)
>>> > +{
>>> > + asm volatile("1:vmxoff\n\t" /* clears all flags on success */
>>>
>>> Eh, I wouldn't bother with the comment, there are a million other caveats
>>> with VMXOFF that are far more interesting.
>>>
>>> > + "2:\n\t"
>>> > + _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
>>> > + ::: "cc", "memory");
>>>
>>> Adding the memory and flags clobber should be a separate patch.
>>>
>>> > + cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_VMXE);
>>> > +}
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see any value in safe/unsafe variants. The only in-kernel user of
>>> VMXOFF outside of the emergency flows is KVM, which has its own VMXOFF
>>> helper, i.e. all users of cpu_vmxoff() want the "safe" variant. Just add
>>> the exception fixup to cpu_vmxoff() and call it good.
>>>
>>> > +
>>> > +/*
>>> > + * Force disable VMX if it is enabled on the current CPU,
>>> > + * when it is unknown whether CPU is in VMX operation.
>>> > */
>>> > static inline void __cpu_emergency_vmxoff(void)
>>> > {
>>> > - if (cpu_vmx_enabled())
>>> > - cpu_vmxoff();
>>> > + if (!cpu_vmx_enabled())
>>> > + return;
>>> > + cpu_vmxoff_safe();
>>>
>>> Unnecessary churn.
>>>
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > -/** Disable VMX if it is supported and enabled on the current CPU
>>> > +/* Force disable VMX if it is supported on current CPU
>>> > */
>>> > static inline void cpu_emergency_vmxoff(void)
>>> > {
>>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>>> > index e040ba6be27b..b0e6b106a67e 100644
>>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>>> > @@ -540,21 +540,14 @@ static void emergency_vmx_disable_all(void)
>>> > *
>>> > * For safety, we will avoid running the nmi_shootdown_cpus()
>>> > * stuff unnecessarily, but we don't have a way to check
>>> > - * if other CPUs have VMX enabled. So we will call it only if the
>>> > - * CPU we are running on has VMX enabled.
>>> > - *
>>> > - * We will miss cases where VMX is not enabled on all CPUs. This
>>> > - * shouldn't do much harm because KVM always enable VMX on all
>>> > - * CPUs anyway. But we can miss it on the small window where KVM
>>> > - * is still enabling VMX.
>>> > + * if other CPUs have VMX enabled.
>>> > */
>>> > - if (cpu_has_vmx() && cpu_vmx_enabled()) {
>>> > + if (cpu_has_vmx()) {
>>> > /* Disable VMX on this CPU. */
>>> > - cpu_vmxoff();
>>> > + cpu_emergency_vmxoff();
>>>
>>> This also needs to be in a separate patch. And it should use
>>> __cpu_emergency_vmxoff() instead of cpu_emergency_vmxoff().
>>>
>>> >
>>> > /* Halt and disable VMX on the other CPUs */
>>> > nmi_shootdown_cpus(vmxoff_nmi);
>>> > -
>>> > }
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > 2.26.2
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists