[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220616162557.55bopzfa6glusuh5@gator>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2022 18:25:57 +0200
From: Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Cc: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Peter Shier <pshier@...gle.com>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: KVM: Handle compiler optimizations in ucall
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 03:58:52PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: Andrew Jones
> > Sent: 16 June 2022 13:03
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2022 at 06:57:06PM +0000, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > The selftests, when built with newer versions of clang, is found
> > > to have over optimized guests' ucall() function, and eliminating
> > > the stores for uc.cmd (perhaps due to no immediate readers). This
> > > resulted in the userspace side always reading a value of '0', and
> > > causing multiple test failures.
> > >
> > > As a result, prevent the compiler from optimizing the stores in
> > > ucall() with WRITE_ONCE().
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c | 9 ++++-----
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c
> > > index e0b0164e9af8..be1d9728c4ce 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/aarch64/ucall.c
> > > @@ -73,20 +73,19 @@ void ucall_uninit(struct kvm_vm *vm)
> > >
> > > void ucall(uint64_t cmd, int nargs, ...)
> > > {
> > > - struct ucall uc = {
> > > - .cmd = cmd,
> > > - };
> > > + struct ucall uc = {};
> > > va_list va;
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(uc.cmd, cmd);
> > > nargs = nargs <= UCALL_MAX_ARGS ? nargs : UCALL_MAX_ARGS;
> > >
> > > va_start(va, nargs);
> > > for (i = 0; i < nargs; ++i)
> > > - uc.args[i] = va_arg(va, uint64_t);
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(uc.args[i], va_arg(va, uint64_t));
> > > va_end(va);
> > >
> > > - *ucall_exit_mmio_addr = (vm_vaddr_t)&uc;
> > > + WRITE_ONCE(*ucall_exit_mmio_addr, (vm_vaddr_t)&uc);
> > > }
>
> Am I misreading things again?
> That function looks like it writes the address of an on-stack
> item into global data.
The write to the address that the global points at causes a switch
from guest to host context. The guest's stack remains intact while
executing host code and the host can access the uc stack variable
directly by its address. Take a look at lib/aarch64/ucall.c to see
all the details.
Thanks,
drew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists