Correction to my comment below.
On Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:45am, "David P. Reed" <dpr...@deepplum.com> said:
> [Sorry: this is resent because my mailer included HTML, rejected by LKML]
> Thanks for the response, Sean ... I had thought everyone was too busy to
> follow up
> from the first version.
>
> I confess I'm not sure why this should be broken up into a patch series, given
> that it is so very small and is all aimed at the same category of bug.
>
> And the "emergency" path pre-existed, I didn't want to propose removing it,
> since
> I assumed it was there for a reason. I didn't want to include my own
> judgement as
> to whether there should only be one path. (I'm pretty sure I didn't find a
> VMXOFF
> in KVM separately from the instance in this include file, but I will check).
Just checked. Yes, the kvm code's handling of VMXOFF is separate, and though it
uses exception masking, seems to do other things, perhaps related to nested
KVM, but I haven't studied the deep logic of KVM nesting.
>
> A question: if I make it a series, I have to test each patch doesn't break
> something individually, in order to handle the case where one patch is
> accepted
> and the others are not. Do I need to test each individual patch thoroughly as
> an
> independent patch against all those cases?
> I know the combination don't break anything and fixes the issues I've
> discovered
> by testing all combinations (and I've done some thorough testing of panics,
> oopses
> crashes, kexec, ... under all combinations of CR4.VMXE enablement and crash
> source
> to verify the fix fixes the problem's manifestations and to verify that it
> doesn't
> break any of the working paths.
>
> That said, I'm willing to do a v3 "series" based on these suggestions if it
> will
> smooth its acceptance. If it's not going to get accepted after doing that, my
> motivation is flagging.
> On Thursday, June 25, 2020 2:06am, "Sean Christopherson"
> <sean.j.christopher...@intel.com> said:
>
>
>
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 03:48:18PM -0400, David P. Reed wrote:
>> > -/** Disable VMX on the current CPU
>> > +/* Disable VMX on the current CPU
>> > *
>> > - * vmxoff causes a undefined-opcode exception if vmxon was not run
>> > - * on the CPU previously. Only call this function if you know VMX
>> > - * is enabled.
>> > + * vmxoff causes an undefined-opcode exception if vmxon was not run
>> > + * on the CPU previously. Only call this function directly if you know VMX
>> > + * is enabled *and* CPU is in VMX root operation.
>> > */
>> > static inline void cpu_vmxoff(void)
>> > {
>> > - asm volatile ("vmxoff");
>> > + asm volatile ("vmxoff" ::: "cc", "memory"); /* clears all flags on
>> > success
>> */
>> > cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_VMXE);
>> > }
>> >
>> > @@ -47,17 +47,35 @@ static inline int cpu_vmx_enabled(void)
>> > return __read_cr4() & X86_CR4_VMXE;
>> > }
>> >
>> > -/** Disable VMX if it is enabled on the current CPU
>> > - *
>> > - * You shouldn't call this if cpu_has_vmx() returns 0.
>> > +/*
>> > + * Safely disable VMX root operation if active
>> > + * Note that if CPU is not in VMX root operation this
>> > + * VMXOFF will fault an undefined operation fault,
>> > + * so use the exception masking facility to handle that RARE
>> > + * case.
>> > + * You shouldn't call this directly if cpu_has_vmx() returns 0
>> > + */
>> > +static inline void cpu_vmxoff_safe(void)
>> > +{
>> > + asm volatile("1:vmxoff\n\t" /* clears all flags on success */
>>
>> Eh, I wouldn't bother with the comment, there are a million other caveats
>> with VMXOFF that are far more interesting.
>>
>> > + "2:\n\t"
>> > + _ASM_EXTABLE(1b, 2b)
>> > + ::: "cc", "memory");
>>
>> Adding the memory and flags clobber should be a separate patch.
>>
>> > + cr4_clear_bits(X86_CR4_VMXE);
>> > +}
>>
>>
>> I don't see any value in safe/unsafe variants. The only in-kernel user of
>> VMXOFF outside of the emergency flows is KVM, which has its own VMXOFF
>> helper, i.e. all users of cpu_vmxoff() want the "safe" variant. Just add
>> the exception fixup to cpu_vmxoff() and call it good.
>>
>> > +
>> > +/*
>> > + * Force disable VMX if it is enabled on the current CPU,
>> > + * when it is unknown whether CPU is in VMX operation.
>> > */
>> > static inline void __cpu_emergency_vmxoff(void)
>> > {
>> > - if (cpu_vmx_enabled())
>> > - cpu_vmxoff();
>> > + if (!cpu_vmx_enabled())
>> > + return;
>> > + cpu_vmxoff_safe();
>>
>> Unnecessary churn.
>>
>> > }
>> >
>> > -/** Disable VMX if it is supported and enabled on the current CPU
>> > +/* Force disable VMX if it is supported on current CPU
>> > */
>> > static inline void cpu_emergency_vmxoff(void)
>> > {
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>> > index e040ba6be27b..b0e6b106a67e 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/reboot.c
>> > @@ -540,21 +540,14 @@ static void emergency_vmx_disable_all(void)
>> > *
>> > * For safety, we will avoid running the nmi_shootdown_cpus()
>> > * stuff unnecessarily, but we don't have a way to check
>> > - * if other CPUs have VMX enabled. So we will call it only if the
>> > - * CPU we are running on has VMX enabled.
>> > - *
>> > - * We will miss cases where VMX is not enabled on all CPUs. This
>> > - * shouldn't do much harm because KVM always enable VMX on all
>> > - * CPUs anyway. But we can miss it on the small window where KVM
>> > - * is still enabling VMX.
>> > + * if other CPUs have VMX enabled.
>> > */
>> > - if (cpu_has_vmx() && cpu_vmx_enabled()) {
>> > + if (cpu_has_vmx()) {
>> > /* Disable VMX on this CPU. */
>> > - cpu_vmxoff();
>> > + cpu_emergency_vmxoff();
>>
>> This also needs to be in a separate patch. And it should use
>> __cpu_emergency_vmxoff() instead of cpu_emergency_vmxoff().
>>
>> >
>> > /* Halt and disable VMX on the other CPUs */
>> > nmi_shootdown_cpus(vmxoff_nmi);
>> > -
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > --
>> > 2.26.2
>> >
>>
>
>
