Message-ID: <4bcd7b66-6e3b-8f53-b688-ce0272123839@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 11:56:02 -0800
From: Mukesh R <mrathor@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, wei.liu@...nel.org,
 decui@...rosoft.com, longli@...rosoft.com, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mshv: Make MSHV mutually exclusive with KEXEC

On 1/27/26 09:47, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 05:39:49PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>> On 1/26/26 16:21, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 03:07:18PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/26 12:43, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:20:09PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/25/26 14:39, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 14:20, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The MSHV driver deposits kernel-allocated pages to the hypervisor during
>>>>>>>>> runtime and never withdraws them. This creates a fundamental incompatibility
>>>>>>>>> with KEXEC, as these deposited pages remain unavailable to the new kernel
>>>>>>>>> loaded via KEXEC, leading to potential system crashes upon kernel accessing
>>>>>>>>> hypervisor deposited pages.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Make MSHV mutually exclusive with KEXEC until proper page lifecycle
>>>>>>>>> management is implemented.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>       drivers/hv/Kconfig |    1 +
>>>>>>>>>       1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hv/Kconfig b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>> index 7937ac0cbd0f..cfd4501db0fa 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ config MSHV_ROOT
>>>>>>>>>       	# e.g. When withdrawing memory, the hypervisor gives back 4k pages in
>>>>>>>>>       	# no particular order, making it impossible to reassemble larger pages
>>>>>>>>>       	depends on PAGE_SIZE_4KB
>>>>>>>>> +	depends on !KEXEC
>>>>>>>>>       	select EVENTFD
>>>>>>>>>       	select VIRT_XFER_TO_GUEST_WORK
>>>>>>>>>       	select HMM_MIRROR
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Will this affect CRASH kexec? I see few CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP in kexec.c
>>>>>>>> implying that crash dump might be involved. Or did you test kdump
>>>>>>>> and it was fine?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, it will. Crash kexec depends on normal kexec functionality, so it
>>>>>>> will be affected as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So not sure I understand the reason for this patch. We can just block
>>>>>> kexec if there are any VMs running, right? Doing this would mean any
>>>>>> further developement would be without a ver important and major feature,
>>>>>> right?
>>>>>
>>>>> This is an option. But until it's implemented and merged, a user mshv
>>>>> driver gets into a situation where kexec is broken in a non-obvious way.
>>>>> The system may crash at any time after kexec, depending on whether the
>>>>> new kernel touches the pages deposited to hypervisor or not. This is a
>>>>> bad user experience.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that. But with this we cannot collect core and debug any
>>>> crashes. I was thinking there would be a quick way to prohibit kexec
>>>> for update via notifier or some other quick hack. Did you already
>>>> explore that and didn't find anything, hence this?
>>>>
>>>
>>> This quick hack you mention isn't quick in the upstream kernel as there
>>> is no hook to interrupt kexec process except the live update one.
>>
>> That's the one we want to interrupt and block right? crash kexec
>> is ok and should be allowed. We can document we don't support kexec
>> for update for now.
>>
>>> I sent an RFC for that one but given todays conversation details is
>>> won't be accepted as is.
>>
>> Are you taking about this?
>>
>>          "mshv: Add kexec safety for deposited pages"
>>
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>> Making mshv mutually exclusive with kexec is the only viable option for
>>> now given time constraints.
>>> It is intended to be replaced with proper page lifecycle management in
>>> the future.
>>
>> Yeah, that could take a long time and imo we cannot just disable KEXEC
>> completely. What we want is just block kexec for updates from some
>> mshv file for now, we an print during boot that kexec for updates is
>> not supported on mshv. Hope that makes sense.
>>
> 
> The trade-off here is between disabling kexec support and having the
> kernel crash after kexec in a non-obvious way. This affects both regular
> kexec and crash kexec.

crash kexec on baremetal is not affected, hence disabling that
doesn't make sense as we can't debug crashes then on bm.

Let me think and explore a bit, and if I come up with something, I'll
send a patch here. If nothing, then we can do this as last resort.

Thanks,
-Mukesh


> It?s a pity we can?t apply a quick hack to disable only regular kexec.
> However, since crash kexec would hit the same issues, until we have a
> proper state transition for deposted pages, the best workaround for now
> is to reset the hypervisor state on every kexec, which needs design,
> work, and testing.
> 
> Disabling kexec is the only consistent way to handle this in the
> upstream kernel at the moment.
> 
> Thanks, Stanislav
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>> -Mukesh
>>
>>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Stanislav
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Mukesh
>>>>
>>>>> Therefor it should be explicitly forbidden as it's essentially not
>>>>> supported yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Stanislav
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Stanislav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -Mukesh

Powered by blists - more mailing lists