Re: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86: Reset last_steal on vCPU pid change

[Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 10:55:25PM -0700, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to
> consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] The patch addresses the steal time
> corruption on vCPU PID change for x86 KVM PV but completely misses the
> equivalent KVM
> 
> 
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
> 
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] The patch addresses the steal time corruption on vCPU PID change for x86 KVM PV but completely misses the equivalent KVM Xen steal time (`vcpu->arch.xen.last_steal`), leaving it exposed to the identical integer underflow.
> - [High] The identical vCPU thread migration bug exists in ARM64, RISC-V, and LoongArch steal time accounting, but the patch only implements the fix for x86.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: x86: Reset last_steal on vCPU pid change ---
> commit d7367ba78784ba11d9b540abce98359a8e902828
> Author: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>
> 
> KVM: x86: Reset last_steal on vCPU pid change
> 
> KVM does not reset last_steal on vCPU re-creation/hotplug, causing a bogus
> large steal time due to run_delay starting from zero. This patch fixes it by
> resetting vcpu->arch.st.last_steal in kvm_arch_vcpu_run_pid_change on x86.
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
>> index 801bf9e520db3..b7cb2ceda6d9a 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/Kconfig
>> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ config KVM_X86
>>  	select HAVE_KVM_MSI
>>  	select HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
>>  	select HAVE_KVM_NO_POLL
>> +	select HAVE_KVM_VCPU_RUN_PID_CHANGE
> 
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does this same integer underflow bug exist
> on other architectures?
> 
> Looking at ARM64, RISC-V, and LoongArch, they all track steal time using
> current->sched_info.run_delay and subtract the old last_steal value, which
> appears identically vulnerable to underflow on vCPU thread recreation.
> 
> For example, on ARM64:
> 
> arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c:kvm_update_stolen_time() {
>     ...
>     steal += vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal - last_steal;
>     ...
> }
> 
> (Note that arm64's kvm_arch_vcpu_run_pid_change() returns early if
> vcpu_has_run_once(vcpu) is true, skipping the opportunity to update last_steal.)
> 
> Are there plans to address this on the other architectures?

Patch 2 addresses the arm64 case.

risc-v and loongarch may need similar handling, but I didn't include them in
this series because I only have x86 and arm64 KVM test environments available to
validate the fix. I don't currently have a risc-v or loongarch setup for KVM
testing.

> 
>>  	select VIRT_XFER_TO_GUEST_WORK
>>  	select KVM_GENERIC_DIRTYLOG_READ_PROTECT
>>  	select KVM_VFIO
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> index 47cb9eba113b1..33be45eec32bc 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> [ ... ]
>> @@ -3717,6 +3717,13 @@ void kvm_service_local_tlb_flush_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_KVM_INTERNAL(kvm_service_local_tlb_flush_requests);
>>  
>> +int kvm_arch_vcpu_run_pid_change(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	vcpu->arch.st.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
>> +
> 
> [Severity: High]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but should this function also
> reset vcpu->arch.xen.last_steal?
> 
> Looking at kvm_xen_update_runstate() in arch/x86/kvm/xen.c, the stolen time
> for Xen runstate is calculated similarly:
> 
> arch/x86/kvm/xen.c:kvm_xen_update_runstate() {
>     ...
>     u64 steal_ns = run_delay - vx->last_steal;
>     delta_ns -= steal_ns;
>     vx->runstate_times[RUNSTATE_runnable] += steal_ns;
>     ...
>     vx->last_steal = run_delay;
> }
> 
> If the thread changes and run_delay resets to 0, wouldn't vx->last_steal
> also cause an identical integer underflow?
> 
As explained in the cover letter, "Although David also suggested doing the same
for Xen-on-KVM vCPUs, this series does not reset last_steal for Xen vCPUs. That
change itself would not be difficult, but Xen uses a different mechanism to
account downtime, including runnable time and offline time when a vCPU is not
running. It may therefore need no additional ioctl, or a smaller ioctl
extension, to account run_delay left over from the previous PID. For now, this
series changes only regular x86 steal time and arm64 PV time."

Dongli Zhang