[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85d3899e-7da5-abad-743b-e5d6dde21800@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 10:53:09 +0100
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com, alexandru.elisei@....com,
anup.patel@....com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com, chenhuacai@...nel.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com, joro@...tes.org,
luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com, paulmck@...nel.org,
paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org, seanjc@...gle.com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs
Am 20.01.22 um 16:14 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
>
>
> Am 20.01.22 um 13:03 schrieb Mark Rutland:
>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:28:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 1/19/22 20:22, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> I wonder, is the s390 guest entry/exit*preemptible* ?
>>>>
>>>> If a timer IRQ can preempt in the middle of the EQS, we wouldn't balance
>>>> things before a ctx-switch to the idle thread, which would then be able
>>>> to hit this.
>>>>
>>>> I'll need to go audit the other architectures for similar.
>>>
>>> They don't enable interrupts in the entry/exit path so they should be okay.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> So it sounds like for s390 adding an explicit preempt_{disable,enable}() is the
>> right thing to do. I'll add that and explanatory commentary.
>
> That would not be trivial I guess. We do allow (and need) page faults on sie for guest
> demand paging and
>
> this piece of arch/s390/mm/fault.c
>
> case GMAP_FAULT:
> if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
> goto out;
> break;
> }
>
> would no longer work since faulthandler_disabled checks for the preempt count.
>
Something like this
diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
index d30f5986fa85..1c7d45346e12 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
@@ -385,10 +385,18 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
return 0;
goto out;
case USER_FAULT:
- case GMAP_FAULT:
if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
goto out;
break;
+ /*
+ * We know that we interrupted SIE and we are not in a IRQ.
+ * preemption might be disabled thus checking for in_atomic
+ * would result in failures
+ */
+ case GMAP_FAULT:
+ if (pagefault_disabled() || !mm)
+ goto out;
+ break;
}
perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);
seems to work with preemption disabled around sie. Not sure yet if this is correct.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists