Re: [PATCH 3/4] KVM: async_pf: Force a nested vmexit if the injected #PF is async_pf

Wanpeng Li
2017-06-15T02:43:59Z

2017-06-15 0:18 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
> 2017-06-14 22:32+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> 2017-06-14 21:20 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>> > 2017-06-14 21:02+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> >> 2017-06-14 20:52 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>> >> > 2017-06-14 09:07+0800, Wanpeng Li:
>> >> >> 2017-06-14 2:55 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
>> >> >> > Using vcpu->arch.cr2 is suspicious as VMX doesn't update CR2 on VM
>> >> >> > exits; isn't this going to change the CR2 visible in L2 guest after a
>> >> >> > nested VM entry?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sorry, I don't fully understand the question. As you know this
>> >> >> vcpu->arch.cr2 which includes token is set before async pf injection,
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, I'm thinking that setting vcpu->arch.cr2 is a mistake in this case.
>> >> >
>> >> >> and L1 will intercept it from EXIT_QUALIFICATION during nested vmexit,
>> >> >
>> >> > Right, so we do not need to have the token in CR2, because L1 is not
>> >> > going to look at it.
>> >> >
>> >> >> why it can change the CR2 visible in L2 guest after a nested VM entry?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry, the situation is too convoluted to be expressed in one sentence:
>> >> >
>> >> > 1) L2 is running with CR2 = L2CR2
>> >> > 3) VMX exits (say, unrelated EXTERNAL_INTERRUPT) and L0 stores L2CR2 in
>> >> > vcpu->arch.cr2
>> >> > 2) APF for L1 has completed
>> >> > 4) L0 KVM wants to inject APF and sets vcpu->arch.cr2 = APFT
>> >> > 5) L0 KVM does a nested VM exit to L1, EXIT_QUALIFICATION = APFT
>> >> > 6) L0 KVM enters L1 with CR2 = vcpu->arch.cr2 = APFT
>> >> > 7) L1 stores APFT as L2's CR2
>> >> > 8) L1 handles APF, maybe reschedules, but eventually comes back to this
>> >> > L2's thread
>> >> > 9) after some time, L1 enters L2 with CR2 = APFT
>> >> > 10) L2 is running with CR2 = APTF
>> >> >
>> >> > The original L2CR2 is lost and we'd introduce a bug if L2 wanted to look
>> >> > at it, e.g. it was in a process of handling its #PF.
>> >>
>> >> Good point. What's your proposal? :)
>> >
>> > Get rid of async_pf. :) Optimal solutions aside, I think it would be
>> > best to add a new injection function for APF. One that injects a normal
>> > #PF for non-nested guests and directly triggers a #PF VM exit otherwise,
>> > and call it from kvm_arch_async_page_*present().
>>
>> In addition, nested vmexit in kvm_arch_async_page_*present() directly
>> instead of through inject_pending_event() before vmentry, or nested
>> vmexit after vmexit on L0 looks strange.
>
> Right, it might be tricky if another exception can get queued in
> between. (Which shouldn't happen, though, because async_pf exceptions
> must not cause double faults for no good reason.)
>
>> So how about the proposal of
>> the nested_apf_token stuff? Radim, Paolo?
>
> I think it is worth exploring. We need to make sure that interfacing
> with userspace through kvm_vcpu_ioctl_x86_{set,get}_vcpu_events() is
> right, but it should be possible without any extension as migration is
> already covered by unconditional async_pf wakeup on the destination.
>
> At this point, using a structure other than arch.exception would make
> sense too -- async_pf uses the exception injection path mostly for
> convenience, but the paravirt exception does not want to mix with real
> exceptions.

Yeah, but maybe need more reconstruct, I just send out v2 to fix it
simply and avoid too aggressive. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li