Message-ID: <aXznwGcuP9rdffYf@anirudh-surface.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 17:17:52 +0000
From: Anirudh Rayabharam <anirudh@...rudhrb.com>
To: Mukesh R <mrathor@...ux.microsoft.com>
Cc: Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@...ux.microsoft.com>,
	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 Thu, Jan 29, 2026 at 06:59:31PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
> On 1/28/26 15:08, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 11:56:02AM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > Bare metal support is not currently relevant, as it is not available.
> > This is the upstream kernel, and this driver will be accessible to
> > third-party customers beginning with kernel 6.19 for running their
> > kernels in Azure L1VH, so consistency is required.
> 
> Well, without crashdump support, customers will not be running anything
> anywhere.

This is my concern too. I don't think customers will be particularly
happy that kexec doesn't work with our driver.

Thanks,
Anirudh

> 
> Thanks,
> -Mukesh
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Stanislav
> > 
> > > 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