From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Update instruction length on intercepted BP
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:13:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7C0787.30405@siemens.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217130325.GU2995@redhat.com>
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:32:05PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 02:20:31PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>>> Lets check if SVM works. I can do that if you tell me how.
>>>>> - Fire up some Linux guest with gdb installed
>>>>> - Attach gdb to gdbstub of the VM
>>>>> - Set a soft breakpoint in guest kernel, ideally where it does not
>>>>> immediately trigger, e.g. on sys_reboot (use grep sys_reboot
>>>>> /proc/kallsyms if you don't have symbols for the guest kernel)
>>>>> - Start gdb /bin/true in the guest
>>>>> - run
>>>>>
>>>>> As gdb sets some automatic breakpoints, this already exercises the
>>>>> reinjection of #BP.
>>>> I just did this on our primary AMD platform (Embedded Opteron, 13KS EE),
>>>> and it just worked.
>>>>
>>> I tested it on processor without NextRIP and your test case works there too,
>>> but it shouldn't have, so I looked deeper into that and what I see is
>>> that GDB outsmart us. It doesn't matter if we inject event before int3
>>> inserted by GDB or after it GDB correctly finds breakpoint that
>>> triggered and restart instruction correctly. I assume it doesn't use
>>> exact match between rip where int3 was inserted and where exceptions
>>> triggers.
>> At latest when you have two successive breakpoints on single-byte
>> instructions, gdb will reach its limits (for it failed earlier, BTW).
>> And other debuggers under other OSes may become unhappy as well.
> Yes, and that is why I am saying checking with GDB is not a good test.
> GDB may work, but it doesn't mean injection works correctly. It took me
> some time to write test that finally confused gdb. It was like this:
>
> 1: int main(int argc, char **argv)
> 2: {
> 3: if (argc == 1)
> 4: goto a;
> 5: asm("cmc");
> 6: a:
> 7: asm("cmc");
> 8: return 0;
> 9: }
>
> If you set breakpoint on lines 5 and 7 when breakpoint triggers GDB
> thinks it is on line 5.
>
> So can you run int3 test below on master on AMD with NextRIP support?
> I doubt the result will be correct.
If you meant your test above: Works out of the box with unpatched kvm on
modern AMD CPUs, ie. gdb always stops at line 7 even if host debugging
is active.
Jan
--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-13 9:31 [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Update instruction length on intercepted BP Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 7:53 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 10:26 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 10:34 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 10:47 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 11:15 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 11:39 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 14:16 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 16:38 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 16:44 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 17:06 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-15 6:48 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 14:45 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 16:37 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 16:53 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 17:06 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 17:26 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 17:49 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-15 13:20 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-15 13:30 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-15 14:25 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-17 11:11 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-17 11:13 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 11:24 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-17 12:39 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 10:55 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 11:32 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-17 13:03 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-17 15:13 ` Jan Kiszka [this message]
2010-02-17 16:11 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 11:20 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-16 11:25 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 12:27 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 12:39 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 12:43 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 12:47 ` Avi Kivity
2010-02-14 12:53 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-02-14 13:23 ` Jan Kiszka
2010-02-14 13:29 ` Jan Kiszka
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=4B7C0787.30405@siemens.com \
--to=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtosatti@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox