From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: virtio-fs@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: Exit to user space in case of page fault error
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:13:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mu4kbn7x.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200630145303.GB322149@redhat.com>
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> It's probably me who's missing something important here :-) but I think
>> you describe how it *should* work as I'm not seeing how we can leave the
>> loop in kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule() other than by
>> "if (hlist_unhashed(&n.link)) break;" and this only happens when APF
>> completes.
>
> We don't leave loop in kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule(). It will happen
> before you return to user space.
>
> I have not looked too closely but I think following code path might be taken
> after aync PF has completed.
>
> __kvm_handle_async_pf()
> idtentry_exit_cond_rcu()
> prepare_exit_to_usermode()
> __prepare_exit_to_usermode()
> exit_to_usermode_loop()
> do_signal()
>
> So once you have been woken up (because APF completed),
Ah, OK so we still need to complete APF and we can't kill the process
before this happens, that's what I was missing.
> you will
> return to user space and before that you will check if there are
> pending signals and handle that signal first before user space
> gets a chance to run again and retry faulting instruction.
...
>
>>
>> When guest receives the 'page ready' event with an error it (like for
>> every other 'page ready' event) tries to wake up the corresponding
>> process but if the process is dead already it can do in-kernel probing
>> of the GFN, this way we guarantee that the error is always injected. I'm
>> not sure if it is needed though but in case it is, this can be a
>> solution. We can add a new feature bit and only deliver errors when the
>> guest indicates that it knows what to do with them.
>
> - Process will be delivered singal after async PF completion and during
> returning to user space. You have lost control by then.
>
So actually there's no way for kernel to know if the userspace process
managed to re-try the instruction and get the error injected or if it
was killed prior to that.
> - If you retry in kernel, we will change the context completely that
> who was trying to access the gfn in question. We want to retain
> the real context and retain information who was trying to access
> gfn in question.
(Just so I understand the idea better) does the guest context matter to
the host? Or, more specifically, are we going to do anything besides
get_user_pages() which will actually analyze who triggered the access
*in the guest*?
--
Vitaly
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtio-fs@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
sean.j.christopherson@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: Exit to user space in case of page fault error
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 17:13:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mu4kbn7x.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200630145303.GB322149@redhat.com>
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 03:24:43PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> It's probably me who's missing something important here :-) but I think
>> you describe how it *should* work as I'm not seeing how we can leave the
>> loop in kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule() other than by
>> "if (hlist_unhashed(&n.link)) break;" and this only happens when APF
>> completes.
>
> We don't leave loop in kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule(). It will happen
> before you return to user space.
>
> I have not looked too closely but I think following code path might be taken
> after aync PF has completed.
>
> __kvm_handle_async_pf()
> idtentry_exit_cond_rcu()
> prepare_exit_to_usermode()
> __prepare_exit_to_usermode()
> exit_to_usermode_loop()
> do_signal()
>
> So once you have been woken up (because APF completed),
Ah, OK so we still need to complete APF and we can't kill the process
before this happens, that's what I was missing.
> you will
> return to user space and before that you will check if there are
> pending signals and handle that signal first before user space
> gets a chance to run again and retry faulting instruction.
...
>
>>
>> When guest receives the 'page ready' event with an error it (like for
>> every other 'page ready' event) tries to wake up the corresponding
>> process but if the process is dead already it can do in-kernel probing
>> of the GFN, this way we guarantee that the error is always injected. I'm
>> not sure if it is needed though but in case it is, this can be a
>> solution. We can add a new feature bit and only deliver errors when the
>> guest indicates that it knows what to do with them.
>
> - Process will be delivered singal after async PF completion and during
> returning to user space. You have lost control by then.
>
So actually there's no way for kernel to know if the userspace process
managed to re-try the instruction and get the error injected or if it
was killed prior to that.
> - If you retry in kernel, we will change the context completely that
> who was trying to access the gfn in question. We want to retain
> the real context and retain information who was trying to access
> gfn in question.
(Just so I understand the idea better) does the guest context matter to
the host? Or, more specifically, are we going to do anything besides
get_user_pages() which will actually analyze who triggered the access
*in the guest*?
--
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-30 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-25 21:47 [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: Exit to user space in case of page fault error Vivek Goyal
2020-06-25 21:47 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-26 9:25 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-26 9:25 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-26 15:03 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-26 15:03 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-29 20:56 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-29 20:56 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-29 22:03 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-29 22:03 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 13:24 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 13:24 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 14:53 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 14:53 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 15:13 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2020-06-30 15:13 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 15:25 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 15:25 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 15:43 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 15:43 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 15:50 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Sean Christopherson
2020-06-30 15:50 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Sean Christopherson
2020-06-30 16:12 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 16:12 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-06-30 16:32 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Sean Christopherson
2020-06-30 16:32 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Sean Christopherson
2020-06-30 18:25 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-06-30 18:25 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vivek Goyal
2020-07-01 8:06 ` [Virtio-fs] [RFC PATCH] kvm, x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
2020-07-01 8:06 ` [RFC PATCH] kvm,x86: " Vitaly Kuznetsov
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=87mu4kbn7x.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=sean.j.christopherson@intel.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=virtio-fs@redhat.com \
/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.