[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aTr9Kx9PjLuV9bi1@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:19:39 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Lai Jiangshan <jiangshan.ljs@...group.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.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>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] KVM: x86: Consolidate KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP check
into the kvm_inject_emulated_db()
On Thu, Dec 11, 2025, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 09:58:04AM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > But I think the WARN will be subject to false positives. KVM doesn't emulate data
> > #DBs, but it does emulate code #DBs, and fault-like code #DBs can be coincident
> > with trap-like single-step #DBs. Ah, but kvm_vcpu_check_code_breakpoint() doesn't
> > account for RFLAGS.TF. That should probably be addressed in this series, especially
> > since it's consolidating KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP handling.
>
> Sorry, I didn't follow it, how fault-like code #DBs can be coincident
> with trap-like single-step #DBs, could you provide an example?
Ya, here's a KUT testcase that applies on top of
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251126191736.907963-1-seanjc@google.com.
---
x86/debug.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 39 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/x86/debug.c b/x86/debug.c
index 8177575c..313d854e 100644
--- a/x86/debug.c
+++ b/x86/debug.c
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ typedef unsigned long (*db_test_fn)(void);
typedef void (*db_report_fn)(unsigned long, const char *);
static unsigned long singlestep_with_movss_blocking_and_dr7_gd(void);
+static unsigned long singlestep_with_code_db(void);
static unsigned long singlestep_with_sti_hlt(void);
static void __run_single_step_db_test(db_test_fn test, db_report_fn report_fn)
@@ -106,11 +107,12 @@ static void __run_single_step_db_test(db_test_fn test, db_report_fn report_fn)
report_fn(start, "");
/*
- * MOV DR #GPs at CPL>0, don't try to run the DR7.GD test in usermode.
- * Likewise for HLT.
+ * MOV DR #GPs at CPL>0, don't try to run the DR7.GD or code #DB tests
+ * in usermode. Likewise for HLT.
*/
- if (test == singlestep_with_movss_blocking_and_dr7_gd
- || test == singlestep_with_sti_hlt)
+ if (test == singlestep_with_movss_blocking_and_dr7_gd ||
+ test == singlestep_with_code_db ||
+ test == singlestep_with_sti_hlt)
return;
n = 0;
@@ -163,6 +165,38 @@ static noinline unsigned long singlestep_basic(void)
return start;
}
+static void report_singlestep_with_code_db(unsigned long start, const char *usermode)
+{
+ report(n == 3 &&
+ dr6[0] == (DR6_ACTIVE_LOW | DR6_BS | DR6_TRAP2) && db_addr[0] == start &&
+ is_single_step_db(dr6[1]) && db_addr[1] == start + 1 &&
+ is_single_step_db(dr6[2]) && db_addr[2] == start + 1 + 1,
+ "%sSingle-step + code #DB test", usermode);
+}
+
+static noinline unsigned long singlestep_with_code_db(void)
+{
+ unsigned long start;
+
+ asm volatile (
+ "lea 1f(%%rip), %0\n\t"
+ "mov %0, %%dr2\n\t"
+ "mov $" xstr(DR7_FIXED_1 | DR7_EXECUTE_DRx(2) | DR7_GLOBAL_ENABLE_DR2) ", %0\n\t"
+ "mov %0, %%dr7\n\t"
+ "pushf\n\t"
+ "pop %%rax\n\t"
+ "or $(1<<8),%%rax\n\t"
+ "push %%rax\n\t"
+ "popf\n\t"
+ "and $~(1<<8),%%rax\n\t"
+ "1:push %%rax\n\t"
+ "popf\n\t"
+ "lea 1b(%%rip), %0\n\t"
+ : "=r" (start) : : "rax"
+ );
+ return start;
+}
+
static void report_singlestep_emulated_instructions(unsigned long start,
const char *usermode)
{
@@ -517,6 +551,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
n, db_addr[0], dr6[0]);
run_ss_db_test(singlestep_basic);
+ run_ss_db_test(singlestep_with_code_db);
run_ss_db_test(singlestep_emulated_instructions);
run_ss_db_test(singlestep_with_sti_blocking);
run_ss_db_test(singlestep_with_movss_blocking);
base-commit: 23071a886edbe303fb964c5c386750b0b458dbfb
--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists