All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, wanpengli@tencent.com,
	jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvmclock: Stop kvmclocks for hibernate restore
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:37:49 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h7kyccpu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mtuqchdu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>

Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> writes:

> Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On 3/17/21 9:30 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> Turn off host updates to the registered kvmclock memory
>>>> locations when transitioning to a hibernated kernel in
>>>> resume_target_kernel().
>>>>
>>>> This is accomplished for secondary vcpus by disabling host
>>>> clock updates for that vcpu when it is put offline. For the
>>>> primary vcpu, it's accomplished by using the existing call back
>>>> from save_processor_state() to kvm_save_sched_clock_state().
>>>>
>>>> The registered kvmclock memory locations may differ between
>>>> the currently running kernel and the hibernated kernel, which
>>>> is being restored and resumed. Kernel memory corruption is thus
>>>> possible if the host clock updates are allowed to run while the
>>>> hibernated kernel is relocated to its original physical memory
>>>> locations.
>>>>
>>>> This is similar to the problem solved for kexec by
>>>> commit 1e977aa12dd4 ("x86: KVM guest: disable clock before rebooting.")
>>>>
>>>> Commit 95a3d4454bb1 ("x86/kvmclock: Switch kvmclock data to a
>>>> PER_CPU variable") innocently increased the exposure for this
>>>> problem by dynamically allocating the physical pages that are
>>>> used for host clock updates when the vcpu count exceeds 64.
>>>> This increases the likelihood that the registered kvmclock
>>>> locations will differ for vcpus above 64.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Xiaoyi Chen <cxiaoyi@amazon.com>
>>>> Tested-by: Mohamed Aboubakr <mabouba@amazon.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Lenny Szubowicz <lszubowi@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>>   1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
>>>> index aa593743acf6..291ffca41afb 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvmclock.c
>>>> @@ -187,8 +187,18 @@ static void kvm_register_clock(char *txt)
>>>>   	pr_info("kvm-clock: cpu %d, msr %llx, %s", smp_processor_id(), pa, txt);
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Turn off host clock updates to the registered memory location when the
>>>> + * cpu clock context is saved via save_processor_state(). Enables correct
>>>> + * handling of the primary cpu clock when transitioning to a hibernated
>>>> + * kernel in resume_target_kernel(), where the old and new registered
>>>> + * memory locations may differ.
>>>> + */
>>>>   static void kvm_save_sched_clock_state(void)
>>>>   {
>>>> +	native_write_msr(msr_kvm_system_time, 0, 0);
>>>> +	kvm_disable_steal_time();
>>>> +	pr_info("kvm-clock: cpu %d, clock stopped", smp_processor_id());
>>>>   }
>>> 
>>> Nitpick: should we rename kvm_save_sched_clock_state() to something more
>>> generic, like kvm_disable_host_clock_updates() to indicate, that what it
>>> does is not only sched clock related?
>>
>> I see your rationale. But if I rename kvm_save_sched_clock_state()
>> then shouldn't I also rename kvm_restore_sched_clock_state().
>> The names appear to reflect the callback that invokes them,
>> from save_processor_state()/restore_state(), rather than what these
>> functions need to do.
>>
>>          x86_platform.save_sched_clock_state = kvm_save_sched_clock_state;
>>          x86_platform.restore_sched_clock_state = kvm_restore_sched_clock_state;
>>   
>> For V2 of my patch, I kept these names as they were. But if you have a strong
>> desire for a different name, then I think both routines should be renamed
>> similarly, since they are meant to be a complimentary pair.
>>
>>> 
>>>>   
>>>>   static void kvm_restore_sched_clock_state(void)
>>>> @@ -311,9 +321,23 @@ static int kvmclock_setup_percpu(unsigned int cpu)
>>>>   	return p ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
>>>>   }
>>>>   
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Turn off host clock updates to the registered memory location when a
>>>> + * cpu is placed offline. Enables correct handling of secondary cpu clocks
>>>> + * when transitioning to a hibernated kernel in resume_target_kernel(),
>>>> + * where the old and new registered memory locations may differ.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int kvmclock_cpu_offline(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	native_write_msr(msr_kvm_system_time, 0, 0);
>>>> +	pr_info("kvm-clock: cpu %d, clock stopped", cpu);
>>> 
>>> I'd say this pr_info() is superfluous: on a system with hundereds of
>>> vCPUs users will get flooded with 'clock stopped' messages which don't
>>> actually mean much: in case native_write_msr() fails the error gets
>>> reported in dmesg anyway. I'd suggest we drop this and pr_info() in
>>> kvm_save_sched_clock_state().
>>> 
>>
>> Agreed. I was essentially using it as a pr_debug(). Gone in V2.
>>
>>>> +	return 0;
>>> 
>>> Why don't we disable steal time accounting here? MSR_KVM_STEAL_TIME is
>>> also per-cpu. Can we merge kvm_save_sched_clock_state() with
>>> kvmclock_cpu_offline() maybe?
>>> 
>>
>> kvm_cpu_down_prepare() in arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c already calls
>> kvm_disable_steal_time() when a vcpu is placed offline.
>> So there is no need to do that in kvmclock_cpu_offline().
>>
>> In the case of the hibernation resume code path, resume_target_kernel()
>> in kernel/power/hibernate.c, the secondary cpus are placed offline,
>> but the primary is not. Instead, we are going to be switching contexts
>> of the primary cpu from the boot kernel to the kernel that was restored
>> from the hibernation image.
>>
>> This is where save_processor_state()/restore_processor_state() and kvm_save_sched_clock_state()/restore_sched_clock_state() come into play
>> to stop the kvmclock of the boot kernel's primary cpu and restart
>> the kvmclock of restored hibernated kernel's primary cpu.
>>
>> And in this case, no one is calling kvm_disable_steal_time(),
>> so kvm_save_sched_clock_state() is doing it. (This is very similar
>> to the reason why kvm_crash_shutdown() in kvmclock.c needs to call
>> kvm_disable_steal_time())
>>
>> However, I'm now wondering if kvm_restore_sched_clock_state()
>> needs to add a call to the equivalent of kvm_register_steal_time(),
>> because otherwise no one will do that for the primary vcpu
>> on resume from hibernation.
>
> In case this is true, steal time accounting is not our only
> problem. kvm_guest_cpu_init(), which is called from
> smp_prepare_boot_cpu() hook also sets up Async PF an PV EOI and both
> these features establish a shared guest-host memory region, in this
> doesn't happen upon resume from hibernation we're in trouble.
>
> smp_prepare_boot_cpu() hook is called very early from start_kernel() but
> what happens when we switch to the context of the hibernated kernel?
>
> I'm going to set up an environement and check what's going on.

According to the log we have a problem indeed:

[   15.844263] ACPI: Preparing to enter system sleep state S4
[   15.844309] PM: Saving platform NVS memory
[   15.844311] Disabling non-boot CPUs ...
[   15.844625] kvm-guest: Unregister pv shared memory for cpu 1
[   15.846272] smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
[   15.847124] kvm-guest: Unregister pv shared memory for cpu 2
[   15.848720] smpboot: CPU 2 is now offline
[   15.849637] kvm-guest: Unregister pv shared memory for cpu 3
[   15.851452] smpboot: CPU 3 is now offline
[   15.853295] PM: hibernation: Creating image:
[   15.865126] PM: hibernation: Need to copy 82214 pages
[18446743485.711482] kvm-clock: cpu 0, msr 8201001, primary cpu clock, resume
[18446743485.711610] PM: Restoring platform NVS memory
[18446743485.713922] Enabling non-boot CPUs ...
[18446743485.713997] x86: Booting SMP configuration:
[18446743485.713998] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 1 APIC 0x1
[18446743485.714127] kvm-clock: cpu 1, msr 8201041, secondary cpu clock
[18446743485.714484] kvm-guest: KVM setup async PF for cpu 1
[18446743485.714489] kvm-guest: stealtime: cpu 1, msr 3ecac080
[18446743485.714816] CPU1 is up
[18446743485.714846] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 2 APIC 0x2
[18446743485.714954] kvm-clock: cpu 2, msr 8201081, secondary cpu clock
[18446743485.715359] kvm-guest: KVM setup async PF for cpu 2
[18446743485.715364] kvm-guest: stealtime: cpu 2, msr 3ed2c080
[18446743485.715640] CPU2 is up
[18446743485.715672] smpboot: Booting Node 0 Processor 3 APIC 0x3
[18446743485.715867] kvm-clock: cpu 3, msr 82010c1, secondary cpu clock
[18446743485.716288] kvm-guest: KVM setup async PF for cpu 3
[18446743485.716293] kvm-guest: stealtime: cpu 3, msr 3edac080
[18446743485.716564] CPU3 is up
[18446743485.716732] ACPI: Waking up from system sleep state S4
[18446743485.728139] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Starting disk
[18446743485.750373] OOM killer enabled.
[18446743485.750909] Restarting tasks ... done.
[18446743485.754465] PM: hibernation: hibernation exit

(this is with your v2 included). There's nothing about CPU0 for
e.g. async PF + timestamps are really interesting. Seems we have issues
to fix) I'm playing with it right now.

-- 
Vitaly


  reply	other threads:[~2021-03-26 12:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-03-11 13:28 [PATCH] x86/kvmclock: Stop kvmclocks for hibernate restore Lenny Szubowicz
2021-03-17 13:30 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-03-26  2:26   ` Lenny Szubowicz
2021-03-26 10:57     ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-03-26 12:37       ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2021-03-26 13:01         ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-03-26 17:14           ` Lenny Szubowicz

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87h7kyccpu.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
    --to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=joro@8bytes.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lszubowi@redhat.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.