linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pt: Do not inject TraceToPAPMI when guest PT isn't supported

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 21 Jun 2021 12:03:36 +0800
From:   Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/pt: Do not inject TraceToPAPMI when guest PT
 isn't supported

On 27/5/2021 1:38 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
>> When a PT perf user is running in system-wide mode on the host,
>> the guest (w/ pt_mode=0) will warn about anonymous NMIs from
>> kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr():
>>
>> [   18.126444] Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 10 on CPU 0.
>> [   18.126447] Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
>> [   18.126448] Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
>>
>> In this case, these PMIs should be handled by the host PT handler().
>> When PT is used in guest-only mode, it's harmless to call host handler.
>>
>> Fix: 8479e04e7d("KVM: x86: Inject PMI for KVM guest")
> 
> s/Fix/Fixes
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 +--
>>   arch/x86/kvm/x86.c           | 3 +++
>>   2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> index 2521d03de5e0..2f09eb0853de 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
>> @@ -2853,8 +2853,7 @@ static int handle_pmi_common(struct pt_regs *regs, u64 status)
>>   		if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
>>   			perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr))
>>   			perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();
>> -		else
>> -			intel_pt_interrupt();
>> +		intel_pt_interrupt();
> 
> Would it make sense to instead do something like:
> 
> 	bool host_pmi = true;
> 
> 	...
> 
> 		if (unlikely(perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest() &&
> 			     perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr)
> 			host_pmi = !perf_guest_cbs->handle_intel_pt_intr();

struct perf_guest_info_callbacks {
	...
	void				(*handle_intel_pt_intr)(void);
};


This fix is deferred until the following proposal is finalized.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YKImQ2%2FDilGIkrfe@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net/

> 
> 		if (likely(host_pmi))
> 			intel_pt_interrupt();
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	/*
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 6529e2023147..6660f3948cea 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> @@ -8087,6 +8087,9 @@ static void kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr(void)
>>   {
>>   	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = __this_cpu_read(current_vcpu);
>>   
>> +	if (!guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_INTEL_PT))
>> +		return;
>> +
>>   	kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_PMI, vcpu);
>>   	__set_bit(MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL_TRACE_TOPA_PMI_BIT,
>>   			(unsigned long *)&vcpu->arch.pmu.global_status);
>> -- 
>> 2.31.1
>>
>