linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] KVM: selftests: test KVM_GUESTDBG

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <YYB2l9bzFhKzobZB@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Nov 2021 23:21:59 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Kieran Bingham <kbingham@...nel.org>,
        Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jessica Yu <jeyu@...nel.org>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Yang Weijiang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/6] KVM: selftests: test KVM_GUESTDBG_BLOCKIRQ

On Mon, Nov 01, 2021, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-01 at 16:43 +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On 11/08/21 14:29, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > > Modify debug_regs test to create a pending interrupt
> > > > and see that it is blocked when single stepping is done
> > > > with KVM_GUESTDBG_BLOCKIRQ
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >   .../testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/debug_regs.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++---
> > > >   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > I haven't looked very much at this, but the test fails.
> > > 
> > 
> > Same here,
> > 
> > the test passes on AMD but fails consistently on Intel:
> > 
> > # ./x86_64/debug_regs 
> > ==== Test Assertion Failure ====
> >   x86_64/debug_regs.c:179: run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_DEBUG && run->debug.arch.exception == DB_VECTOR && run->debug.arch.pc == target_rip && run->debug.arch.dr6 == target_dr6
> >   pid=13434 tid=13434 errno=0 - Success
> >      1	0x00000000004027c6: main at debug_regs.c:179
> >      2	0x00007f65344cf554: ?? ??:0
> >      3	0x000000000040294a: _start at ??:?
> >   SINGLE_STEP[1]: exit 8 exception 1 rip 0x402a25 (should be 0x402a27) dr6 0xffff4ff0 (should be 0xffff4ff0)
> > 
> > (I know I'm late to the party).
> 
> Well that is strange. It passes on my intel laptop. Just tested 
> (kvm/queue + qemu master, compiled today) :-(
> 
> It fails on iteration 1 (and there is iteration 0) which I think means that we
> start with RIP on sti, and get #DB on start of xor instruction first (correctly), 
> and then we get #DB again on start of xor instruction again?
> 
> Something very strange. My laptop has i7-7600U.

I haven't verified on hardware, but my guess is that this code in vmx_vcpu_run()

	/* When single-stepping over STI and MOV SS, we must clear the
	 * corresponding interruptibility bits in the guest state. Otherwise
	 * vmentry fails as it then expects bit 14 (BS) in pending debug
	 * exceptions being set, but that's not correct for the guest debugging
	 * case. */
	if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP)
		vmx_set_interrupt_shadow(vcpu, 0);

interacts badly with APICv=1.  It will kill the STI shadow and cause the IRQ in
vmcs.GUEST_RVI to be recognized when it (micro-)architecturally should not.  My
head is going in circles trying to sort out what would actually happen.  Maybe
comment out that and/or disable APICv to see if either one makes the test pass?