linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: Add support for HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall

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: <272ea76d-0099-873e-b8a8-1cc43b7b1e11@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:27:20 -0400
From:   Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To:     Jane Malalane <jane.malalane@...rix.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
        Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
        Maximilian Heyne <mheyne@...zon.de>,
        Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@...el.com>,
        xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/xen: Add support for HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector


On 7/11/22 11:22 AM, Jane Malalane wrote:
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/enlighten_hvm.c
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
>   
>   #include <xen/features.h>
>   #include <xen/events.h>
> +#include <xen/interface/hvm/hvm_op.h>
>   #include <xen/interface/memory.h>
>   
>   #include <asm/apic.h>
> @@ -30,6 +31,9 @@
>   
>   static unsigned long shared_info_pfn;
>   
> +__ro_after_init bool xen_ack_upcall;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xen_ack_upcall);


Shouldn't this be called something like xen_percpu_upcall?


> +
>   void xen_hvm_init_shared_info(void)
>   {
>   	struct xen_add_to_physmap xatp;
> @@ -125,6 +129,9 @@ DEFINE_IDTENTRY_SYSVEC(sysvec_xen_hvm_callback)
>   {
>   	struct pt_regs *old_regs = set_irq_regs(regs);
>   
> +	if (xen_ack_upcall)
> +		ack_APIC_irq();
> +
>   	inc_irq_stat(irq_hv_callback_count);
>   
>   	xen_hvm_evtchn_do_upcall();
> @@ -168,6 +175,15 @@ static int xen_cpu_up_prepare_hvm(unsigned int cpu)
>   	if (!xen_have_vector_callback)
>   		return 0;
>   
> +	if (xen_ack_upcall) {
> +		xen_hvm_evtchn_upcall_vector_t op = {
> +			.vector = HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR,
> +			.vcpu = per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu),
> +		};
> +
> +		BUG_ON(HYPERVISOR_hvm_op(HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector, &op));


Does this have to be fatal? Can't we just fail bringing this vcpu up?


> +	}
> +
>   	if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_safe_pvclock))
>   		xen_setup_timer(cpu);
>   
> @@ -211,8 +227,7 @@ static void __init xen_hvm_guest_init(void)
>   
>   	xen_panic_handler_init();
>   
> -	if (!no_vector_callback && xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector))
> -		xen_have_vector_callback = 1;
> +	xen_have_vector_callback = !no_vector_callback;


Can we get rid of one of those two variables then?


>   
>   	xen_hvm_smp_init();
>   	WARN_ON(xen_cpuhp_setup(xen_cpu_up_prepare_hvm, xen_cpu_dead_hvm));
> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/suspend_hvm.c b/arch/x86/xen/suspend_hvm.c
> index 9d548b0c772f..be66e027ef28 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/suspend_hvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/suspend_hvm.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
>   #include <xen/hvm.h>
>   #include <xen/features.h>
>   #include <xen/interface/features.h>
> +#include <xen/events.h>
>   
>   #include "xen-ops.h"
>   
> @@ -14,6 +15,23 @@ void xen_hvm_post_suspend(int suspend_cancelled)
>   		xen_hvm_init_shared_info();
>   		xen_vcpu_restore();
>   	}
> -	xen_setup_callback_vector();
> +	if (xen_ack_upcall) {
> +		unsigned int cpu;
> +
> +		for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +			xen_hvm_evtchn_upcall_vector_t op = {
> +					.vector = HYPERVISOR_CALLBACK_VECTOR,
> +					.vcpu = per_cpu(xen_vcpu_id, cpu),
> +			};
> +
> +			BUG_ON(HYPERVISOR_hvm_op(HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector,
> +						 &op));
> +			/* Trick toolstack to think we are enlightened. */
> +			if (!cpu)
> +				BUG_ON(xen_set_callback_via(1));


What are you trying to make the toolstack aware of? That we have *a* callback (either global or percpu)?


BTW, you can take it out the loop. And maybe @op definition too, except for .vcpu assignment.


> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		xen_setup_callback_vector();
> +	}
>   	xen_unplug_emulated_devices();
>   }


-boris