Re: [PATCH] kvm: notify host when guest paniced

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 09:08:52AM +0800, Wen Congyang wrote:
> At 02/28/2012 06:45 PM, Gleb Natapov Wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:19:47AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2012-02-28 10:42, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>> At 02/28/2012 05:34 PM, Jan Kiszka Wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-02-28 09:23, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>>>> At 02/27/2012 11:08 PM, Jan Kiszka Wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2012-02-27 04:01, Wen Congyang wrote:
> >>>>>>> We can know the guest is paniced when the guest runs on xen.
> >>>>>>> But we do not have such feature on kvm. This patch implemnts
> >>>>>>> this feature, and the implementation is the same as xen:
> >>>>>>> register panic notifier, and call hypercall when the guest
> >>>>>>> is paniced.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>  arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c    |   12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>  arch/x86/kvm/svm.c       |    8 ++++++--
> >>>>>>>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c       |    8 ++++++--
> >>>>>>>  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c       |   13 +++++++++++--
> >>>>>>>  include/linux/kvm.h      |    1 +
> >>>>>>>  include/linux/kvm_para.h |    1 +
> >>>>>>>  6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> >>>>>>> index f0c6fd6..b928d1d 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -331,6 +331,17 @@ static struct notifier_block kvm_pv_reboot_nb = {
> >>>>>>>  	.notifier_call = kvm_pv_reboot_notify,
> >>>>>>>  };
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>> +static int
> >>>>>>> +kvm_pv_panic_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long code, void *unused)
> >>>>>>> +{
> >>>>>>> +	kvm_hypercall0(KVM_HC_GUEST_PANIC);
> >>>>>>> +	return NOTIFY_DONE;
> >>>>>>> +}
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +static struct notifier_block kvm_pv_panic_nb = {
> >>>>>>> +	.notifier_call = kvm_pv_panic_notify,
> >>>>>>> +};
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You should split up host and guest-side changes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>  static u64 kvm_steal_clock(int cpu)
> >>>>>>>  {
> >>>>>>>  	u64 steal;
> >>>>>>> @@ -417,6 +428,7 @@ void __init kvm_guest_init(void)
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>  	paravirt_ops_setup();
> >>>>>>>  	register_reboot_notifier(&kvm_pv_reboot_nb);
> >>>>>>> +	atomic_notifier_chain_register(&panic_notifier_list, &kvm_pv_panic_nb);
> >>>>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < KVM_TASK_SLEEP_HASHSIZE; i++)
> >>>>>>>  		spin_lock_init(&async_pf_sleepers[i].lock);
> >>>>>>>  	if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_ASYNC_PF))
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> >>>>>>> index 0b7690e..38b4705 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1900,10 +1900,14 @@ static int halt_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>  static int vmmcall_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
> >>>>>>>  {
> >>>>>>> +	int ret;
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>  	svm->next_rip = kvm_rip_read(&svm->vcpu) + 3;
> >>>>>>>  	skip_emulated_instruction(&svm->vcpu);
> >>>>>>> -	kvm_emulate_hypercall(&svm->vcpu);
> >>>>>>> -	return 1;
> >>>>>>> +	ret = kvm_emulate_hypercall(&svm->vcpu);
> >>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>> +	/* Ignore the error? */
> >>>>>>> +	return ret == 0 ? 0 : 1;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why can't kvm_emulate_hypercall return the right value?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> kvm_emulate_hypercall() will call kvm_hv_hypercall(), and
> >>>>> kvm_hv_hypercall() will return 0 when vcpu's CPL > 0.
> >>>>> If vcpu's CPL > 0, does kvm need to exit and tell it to
> >>>>> qemu?
> >>>>
> >>>> No, there is currently no exit to userspace due to hypercalls, neither
> >>>> of HV nor KVM kind.
> >>>>
> >>>> The point is that the return code of kvm_emulate_hypercall is unused so
> >>>> far, so you can easily redefine it to encode continue vs. exit to
> >>>> userspace. Once someone has different needs, this could still be
> >>>> refactored again.
> >>>
> >>> So, it is OK to change the return value of kvm_hv_hypercall() if vcpu's
> >>> CPL > 0?
> >>
> >> Yes, change it to encode what vendor modules need to return to their
> >> callers.
> >>
> > Better introduce new request flag and set it in your hypercall emulation. See
> > how triple fault is handled.
> 
> triple fault sets KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN and exits to userspace. Do you mean introduce
> a new value(like KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN)?
> 
I mean introduce new request bit (like KVM_REQ_TRIPLE_FAULT) and set it
in your hypercall if exit to userspace is needed instead of changing
return values.

--
			Gleb.