Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs

From: Christian Borntraeger
Date: Fri Jan 21 2022 - 04:55:04 EST


Am 20.01.22 um 16:14 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:


Am 20.01.22 um 13:03 schrieb Mark Rutland:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:28:09PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 1/19/22 20:22, Mark Rutland wrote:
I wonder, is the s390 guest entry/exit*preemptible*  ?

If a timer IRQ can preempt in the middle of the EQS, we wouldn't balance
things before a ctx-switch to the idle thread, which would then be able
to hit this.

I'll need to go audit the other architectures for similar.

They don't enable interrupts in the entry/exit path so they should be okay.

True.

So it sounds like for s390 adding an explicit preempt_{disable,enable}() is the
right thing to do. I'll add that and explanatory commentary.

That would not be trivial I guess. We do allow (and need) page faults on sie for guest
demand paging and

this piece of arch/s390/mm/fault.c

       case GMAP_FAULT:
                if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
                        goto out;
                break;
        }

would no longer work since faulthandler_disabled checks for the preempt count.



Something like this


diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
index d30f5986fa85..1c7d45346e12 100644
--- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
@@ -385,10 +385,18 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
return 0;
goto out;
case USER_FAULT:
- case GMAP_FAULT:
if (faulthandler_disabled() || !mm)
goto out;
break;
+ /*
+ * We know that we interrupted SIE and we are not in a IRQ.
+ * preemption might be disabled thus checking for in_atomic
+ * would result in failures
+ */
+ case GMAP_FAULT:
+ if (pagefault_disabled() || !mm)
+ goto out;
+ break;
}
perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS, 1, regs, address);

seems to work with preemption disabled around sie. Not sure yet if this is correct.