On 24.02.2022 20:48, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The original shadow stack support has an error on S3 resume with very bizzare
> fallout. The BSP comes back up, but APs fail with:
>
> (XEN) Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
> (XEN) Stuck ??
> (XEN) Error bringing CPU1 up: -5
>
> and then later (on at least two Intel TigerLake platforms), the next HVM vCPU
> to be scheduled on the BSP dies with:
>
> (XEN) d1v0 Unexpected vmexit: reason 3
> (XEN) domain_crash called from vmx.c:4304
> (XEN) Domain 1 (vcpu#0) crashed on cpu#0:
>
> The VMExit reason is EXIT_REASON_INIT, which has nothing to do with the
> scheduled vCPU, and will be addressed in a subsequent patch. It is a
> consequence of the APs triple faulting.
>
> The reason the APs triple fault is because we don't tear down the stacks on
> suspend. The idle/play_dead loop is killed in the middle of running, meaning
> that the supervisor token is left busy.
>
> On resume, SETSSBSY finds the token already busy, suffers #CP and triple
> faults because the IDT isn't configured this early.
>
> Rework the AP bringup path to (re)create the supervisor token. This ensures
> the primary stack is non-busy before use.
>
> Fixes: b60ab42db2f0 ("x86/shstk: Activate Supervisor Shadow Stacks")
> Link: https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/7283
> Reported-by: Thiner Logoer <logoerthin...@163.com>
> Reported-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marma...@invisiblethingslab.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
> Tested-by: Thiner Logoer <logoerthin...@163.com>
> Tested-by: Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marma...@invisiblethingslab.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
> Slightly RFC. This does fix the crash encountered, but it occurs to me that
> there's a race condition when S3 platform powerdown is incident with an
> NMI/#MC, where more than just the primary shadow stack can end up busy on
> resume.
>
> A larger fix would be to change how we allocate tokens, and always have each
> CPU set up its own tokens. I didn't do this originally in the hopes of having
> WRSSQ generally disabled, but that plan failed when encountering reality...
While I think this wants fixing one way or another, I also think this
shouldn't block the immediate fix here (which addresses an unconditional
crash rather than a pretty unlikely one).
Jan
