Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: downgrade warning on unexpected exit code

["Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>]

2017-03-10 19:56+0100, Dmitry Vyukov:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> >> 2017-01-02 11:23+0100, Dmitry Vyukov:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I've got the following warning while running syzkaller fuzzer:
> >>>
> >>> WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 13257 at arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c:8633
> >>> vmx_handle_exit+0x262b/0x38b0 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c:8633
> >>> vmx: unexpected exit reason 0xb
> >>> CPU: 2 PID: 13257 Comm: syz-executor7 Not tainted 4.10.0-rc1+ #118
> >>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> >>> Call Trace:
> >>>  __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:15 [inline]
> >>>  dump_stack+0x292/0x3a2 lib/dump_stack.c:51
> >>>  panic+0x1cb/0x3a9 kernel/panic.c:179
> >>>  __warn+0x1c4/0x1e0 kernel/panic.c:539
> >>>  warn_slowpath_fmt+0xc5/0x100 kernel/panic.c:562
> >>>  vmx_handle_exit+0x262b/0x38b0 arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c:8633
> >>>  vcpu_enter_guest arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:6884 [inline]
> >>>  vcpu_run arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:6943 [inline]
> >>>  kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0xf3d/0x45f0 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:7101
> >>>  kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x673/0x1120 arch/x86/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:2569
> >>>  vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:43 [inline]
> >>>  do_vfs_ioctl+0x1bf/0x1780 fs/ioctl.c:683
> >>>  SYSC_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:698 [inline]
> >>>  SyS_ioctl+0x8f/0xc0 fs/ioctl.c:689
> >>>  entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1f/0xc2
> >>> RIP: 0033:0x4438a9
> >>> RSP: 002b:00007f935aa2fb58 EFLAGS: 00000286 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> >>> RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000015 RCX: 00000000004438a9
> >>> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000ae80 RDI: 0000000000000015
> >>> RBP: 00000000006ddb30 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> >>> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000286 R12: 0000000000700000
> >>> R13: 0000000000000006 R14: 0000000000000015 R15: 0000000020014000
> >>> Dumping ftrace buffer:
> >>>    (ftrace buffer empty)
> >>> Kernel Offset: disabled
> >>>
> >>> Exit reason 0xb is GETSEC instruction. This does not look harmful as
> >>> it is handled as #UD. But I think we should print a single line
> >>> message regarding non-emulated instruction as in other cases, just to
> >>> not scare cloud admins and to make syzkaller ignore it.
> >>>
> >>> FTR, a raw reproducer is here:
> >>> https://gist.githubusercontent.com/dvyukov/c762f6ea04ebbba49cdee0a6caca31b4/raw/f21deb04cdc70ae74100c12447d71bb0cd2025c7/gistfile1.txt
> >>
> >> I can't reproduce -- maybe a nested bug, which will take a while to
> >> figure out.  Still, host dump at that point is useless, so the change
> >> makes sense.
> >>
> >> A guest dump would be useful (e.g. I think that GETSEC should not exit
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > I had to disable dump_vmcs locally because it constantly produces tons
> > of output even when no bugs happen.
> > If you really-really need it, I can enable dump_vmcs and re-reproduce the bug.
> >
> >
> >> if guest CR4.SMX is disabled), but just giving the error is about as
> >> good and we want something short and rate-limited if the message can be
> >> trigerred by a guest in production ...
> >> ---8<---
> >> We never needed the call trace and we better rate-limit if it can be
> >> triggered by a guest.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 3 ++-
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >> index a236decb81e4..7cd606daa01e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >> @@ -8595,7 +8595,8 @@ static int vmx_handle_exit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>             && kvm_vmx_exit_handlers[exit_reason])
> >>                 return kvm_vmx_exit_handlers[exit_reason](vcpu);
> >>         else {
> >> -               WARN_ONCE(1, "vmx: unexpected exit reason 0x%x\n", exit_reason);
> >> +               vcpu_unimpl(vcpu, "vmx: unexpected exit reason 0x%x\n",
> >> +                               exit_reason);
> >>                 kvm_queue_exception(vcpu, UD_VECTOR);
> >>                 return 1;
> >>         }
> >> --
> >> 2.11.0
> >>
> 
> Was this ever merged? Still happens for me.

No, it was forgotten ... queued now,

Thanks