linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/intr: Explicitly check NMI from guest to eliminate false positives

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]

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:11:04 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/intr: Explicitly check NMI from guest to
 eliminate false positives

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024, Like Xu wrote:
> On 7/2/2024 5:08 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 06, 2024, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Never mind, this causes KUT's pmu_pebs test to fail:
> > 
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): GP counter 0 (0xfffffffffffe): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x2): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x4): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> >    FAIL: Adaptive (0x1f000008): Multiple (0x700000055): No OVF irq, none PEBS records.
> > 
> > It might be a test bug, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to
> > investigate.
> 
> For PEBS ovf case, we have "in_nmi() = 0x100000" from the core kernel and
> the following diff fixes the issue:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 995760ba072f..dcf665251fce 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1891,7 +1891,7 @@ enum kvm_intr_type {
>  /* Enable perf NMI and timer modes to work, and minimise false positives. */
>  #define kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(vcpu) \
>  	((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest && \
> -	 (in_nmi() == ((vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest == KVM_HANDLING_NMI)))
> +	 (!!in_nmi() == ((vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest == KVM_HANDLING_NMI)))
> 
>  void __init kvm_mmu_x86_module_init(void);
>  int kvm_mmu_vendor_module_init(void);
> 
> , does it help (tests passed on ICX) ?

Yes, that resolves the issues I was seeing.  I'll get this applied with the above
squashed.

I'll also see if the tip tree folks would be open to converting the in_{nmi,hardirq,...}()
macros to functions that return bools (or at least casting to bools in the macros).
I can't see any reason for in_nmi() to effectively return an int since it's just
a wrapper to nmi_count(), and this seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

> > If you want any chance of your patches going anywhere but my trash folder, you
> > need to change your upstream workflow to actually run tests.  I would give most
> > people the benefit of the doubt, e.g. assume they didn't have the requisite
> > hardware, or didn't realize which tests would be relevant/important.  But this
> > is a recurring problem, and you have been warned, multiple times.
> 
> Sorry, my CI resources are diverted to other downstream projects.
> But there's no doubt it's my fault and this behavior will be corrected.

Thank you.