Kernel KVM virtualization development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shivansh Dhiman <shivansh.dhiman@amd.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
	<kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <x86@kernel.org>, <yosry@kernel.org>,
	<jmattson@google.com>, <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
	<nikunj.dadhania@amd.com>, <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
	<santosh.shukla@amd.com>,
	Shivansh Dhiman <shivansh.dhiman@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support and refactor LBRV
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2026 01:48:49 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <e905df55-6d91-40f1-8761-6bcf600d8b7e@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <arb9YBIW8C5KXuXK@google.com>



On 26-09-26 04:31, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2026, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2026, Shivansh Dhiman wrote:
>>> Shivansh Dhiman (5):
>>>   KVM: SVM: Refactor svm_update_lbrv()
>>>   KVM: nSVM: Disable LBRV in nested control cache when unsupported
>>>   KVM: nSVM: Sanitize nested DR6 using kvm_dr6_fixed()
>>>   KVM: SVM: Turn DEBUGCTL_RESERVED_BITS into a helper
>>>   KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support
>>
>> I'll send a v5 as I have variety of changes (I already responded to each patch),
>> and I'm not in the mood to deal with another version as I'm quite grumpy that no
>> one bothered to follow up on Sashiko's bug report, or to write tests.
>>
>> I'll also post a KUT testcase, which I created to verify the bug Sashiko pointed
>> out as well as the fix. 
> 
> You know what I *love* doing on a Friday afternoon?  Debugging ucode bugs because
> apparently hardware engineers are also allergic to testing.  Or maybe the APM just
> sucks more than usual.   But the behavior fundamentally breaks virtualization, so
> IMO it's a hardware/ucode bug.
> 
> On Turin (the only AMD hardware with Bus Lock Detect I've tested), hardware/ucode
> forces DR6.BLD=1 if DEBUGCTL.BLCKDB=0, even on software writes and even on loads
> of DR6 via VMRUN (this last bit is what really throws a wrench in virtualization).
> 
> Software can still read DR6.BLD=0 if DEBUGCTL.BLCKDB=0, but if anything touches
> DR6, DR6.BLD gets clobbered back to '1'.  E.g. if the guest gets into a state
> where DR6.BLD=0 and DEBUGCTL.BLCKDB=0, then AFAICT *any* #VMEXIT will end up
> setting guest.DR6.BLD=1 on the subsequent VMRUN, which is just a wee bit problematic
> because it means asynchronous #VMEXITs, e.g. for host IRQs, clobber guest state.

I reproduced this on Turin with a small KUT test and a trace_printk() of
VMCB.DR6/DEBUGCTL around VMRUN. In each log, the first #VMEXIT (0x26) is
the read_dr6(), which re-executes after the VMRUN.


(1) BLCKDB=1: DR6.BLD=0 is preserved

	wrmsr(DEBUGCTL, BLCKDB);
	write_dr6(0xffff07f0);		/* DR6.BLD=0 */
	cpuid(0);			/* unrelated #VMEXIT */
	read_dr6();			/* -> ffff07f0 */

  #VMEXIT: exit_code=26, vmcb dr6=ffff0ff0
  VMRUN:   vmcb dr6=ffff07f0, dbgctl=4, v_lbr=1
  #VMEXIT: exit_code=7b, vmcb dr6=ffff07f0

As expected.


(2) BLCKDB=0: DR6.BLD=0 is lost

	/* KUT test continued from above */
	write_dr6(0xffff07f0);		/* DR6.BLD=0 */
	wrmsr(DEBUGCTL, 0);
	cpuid(0);			/* unrelated #VMEXIT */
	read_dr6();			/* -> ffff0ff0 */

  #VMEXIT: exit_code=26, vmcb dr6=ffff0ff0
  VMRUN:   vmcb dr6=ffff07f0, dbgctl=0, v_lbr=0
  #VMEXIT: exit_code=7b, vmcb dr6=ffff07f0

KVM loads BLD=0, yet the guest reads BLD=1, so KVM isn't the one setting it.
The VMCB still shows BLD=0 at the next #VMEXIT, though.


(3) BLCKDB=1 again: DR6.BLD=0 comes back

	/* KUT test continued from above */
	wrmsr(DEBUGCTL, BLCKDB);
	read_dr6();			/* -> ffff07f0 */

  #VMEXIT: exit_code=26, vmcb dr6=ffff0ff0
  VMRUN:   vmcb dr6=ffff07f0, dbgctl=4, v_lbr=1
  #VMEXIT: exit_code=7b, vmcb dr6=ffff07f0

At the last #VMEXIT in (2), KVM saved VMCB.DR6 (BLD=0) into its copy of the
guest's DR6. Here it reloads that copy, now with BLCKDB=1, and the guest
sees BLD=0 again. So in this sequence BLD=0 was "hidden" from the guest while
BLCKDB=0, but survived in KVM's saved state.

---

I wanted to understand the practical side better, since I may well be missing
something. My reading of APM 13.1.3.6 is that the processor clears DR6.BLD
only for a bus lock #DB (so only while BLCKDB=1), and that system software
then sets it back to 1 before returning to the interrupted task. I'm not
sure if any software is intended to work by clearing DR6.BLD themselves.

Are there any flows where a guest can end up with DR6.BLD=0 and BLCKDB=0? That
would help me understand where this bites.

-Shivansh

> 
> I'm still going to post v5 because I'm fairly confident the KVM implementation
> is correct, and the bug is easy enough to workaround in the testcases, but needless
> to say, I'm not happy at the moment.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-10-01 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-21  5:05 [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support and refactor LBRV Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 1/5] KVM: SVM: Refactor svm_update_lbrv() Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  6:40   ` Nikunj A. Dadhania
2026-07-21  9:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:31   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 22:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 2/5] KVM: nSVM: Disable LBRV in nested control cache when unsupported Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 3/5] KVM: nSVM: Sanitize nested DR6 using kvm_dr6_fixed() Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:21   ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-25 17:26     ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-25 17:39   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 22:16     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:05 ` [PATCH v4 4/5] KVM: SVM: Turn DEBUGCTL_RESERVED_BITS into a helper Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:43   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 22:29     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-07-21  5:06 ` [PATCH v4 5/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support Shivansh Dhiman
2026-09-25 17:45 ` [PATCH v4 0/5] KVM: SVM: Add Bus Lock Detect support and refactor LBRV Sean Christopherson
2026-09-25 23:01   ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-28 18:38     ` Shivansh Dhiman
2026-10-01 20:18     ` Shivansh Dhiman [this message]
2026-10-01 23:11       ` Sean Christopherson
2026-09-30 23:05   ` Shivansh Dhiman

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=e905df55-6d91-40f1-8761-6bcf600d8b7e@amd.com \
    --to=shivansh.dhiman@amd.com \
    --cc=jmattson@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nikunj.dadhania@amd.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
    --cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yosry@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox