Re: Possible nohz-full/RCU issue in arm64 KVM

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 03:15:29PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> On Fri, 2021-12-17 at 13:21 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 12:51:57PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > > Hi All,
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > arm64's guest entry code does the following:
> > > 
> > > int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > 	[...]
> > > 
> > > 	guest_enter_irqoff();
> > > 
> > > 	ret = kvm_call_hyp_ret(__kvm_vcpu_run, vcpu);
> > > 
> > > 	[...]
> > > 
> > > 	local_irq_enable();
> > > 
> > > 	/*
> > > 	 * We do local_irq_enable() before calling guest_exit() so
> > > 	 * that if a timer interrupt hits while running the guest we
> > > 	 * account that tick as being spent in the guest.  We enable
> > > 	 * preemption after calling guest_exit() so that if we get
> > > 	 * preempted we make sure ticks after that is not counted as
> > > 	 * guest time.
> > > 	 */
> > > 	guest_exit();
> > > 	[...]
> > > }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On a nohz-full CPU, guest_{enter,exit}() delimit an RCU extended quiescent
> > > state (EQS). Any interrupt happening between local_irq_enable() and
> > > guest_exit() should disable that EQS. Now, AFAICT all el0 interrupt handlers
> > > do the right thing if trggered in this context, but el1's won't. Is it
> > > possible to hit an el1 handler (for example __el1_irq()) there?
> > 
> > I think you're right that the EL1 handlers can trigger here and won't exit the
> > EQS.
> > 
> > I'm not immediately sure what we *should* do here. What does x86 do for an IRQ
> > taken from a guest mode? I couldn't spot any handling of that case, but I'm not
> > familiar enough with the x86 exception model to know if I'm looking in the
> > right place.
> 
> Well x86 has its own private KVM guest context exit function
> 'kvm_guest_exit_irqoff()', which allows it to do the right thing (simplifying
> things):
> 
> 	local_irq_disable();
> 	kvm_guest_enter_irqoff() // Inform CT, enter EQS
> 	__vmx_kvm_run()
> 	kvm_guest_exit_irqoff() // Inform CT, exit EQS, task still marked with PF_VCPU
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Consume any pending interrupts, including the possible source of
> 	 * VM-Exit on SVM and any ticks that occur between VM-Exit and now.
> 	 * An instruction is required after local_irq_enable() to fully unblock
> 	 * interrupts on processors that implement an interrupt shadow, the
> 	 * stat.exits increment will do nicely.
> 	 */
> 	local_irq_enable();
> 	++vcpu->stat.exits;
> 	local_irq_disable();
> 
> 	/*
> 	 * Wait until after servicing IRQs to account guest time so that any
> 	 * ticks that occurred while running the guest are properly accounted
> 	 * to the guest.  Waiting until IRQs are enabled degrades the accuracy
> 	 * of accounting via context tracking, but the loss of accuracy is
> 	 * acceptable for all known use cases.
> 	 */
> 	vtime_account_guest_exit(); // current->flags &= ~PF_VCPU

I see.

The abstraction's really messy here on x86, and the enter/exit sides aren't
clearly balanced.

For example kvm_guest_enter_irqoff() calls guest_enter_irq_off() which calls
vtime_account_guest_enter(), but kvm_guest_exit_irqoff() doesn't call
guest_exit_irq_off() and the call to vtime_account_guest_exit() is open-coded
elsewhere. Also, guest_enter_irq_off() conditionally calls
rcu_virt_note_context_switch(), but I can't immediately spot anything on the
exit side that corresponded with that, which looks suspicious.

> So I guess we should convert to x86's scheme, and maybe create another generic
> guest_{enter,exit}() flavor for virtualization schemes that run with interrupts
> disabled.

I think we might need to do some preparatory refactoring here so that this is
all clearly balanced even on x86, e.g. splitting the enter/exit steps into
multiple phases.

> > Note that the EL0 handlers *cannot* trigger for an exception taken from a
> > guest. We use separate vectors while running a guest (for both VHE and nVHE
> > modes), and from the main kernel's PoV we return from kvm_call_hyp_ret(). We
> > can ony take IRQ from EL1 *after* that returns.
> > 
> > We *might* need to audit the KVM vector handlers to make sure they're not
> > dependent on RCU protection (I assume they're not, but it's possible something
> > has leaked into the VHE code).
> 
> IIUC in the window between local_irq_enable() and guest_exit() any driver
> interrupt might trigger, isn't it?

Yes, via the EL1 interrupt vectors, which I assume we'll fix in one go above.

Here I was trying to point out that there's another potential issue here if we
do anything in the context of the KVM exception vectors, as those can run C
code in a shallow exeption context, and can either return back into the guest
OR return to the caller of kvm_call_hyp_ret(__kvm_vcpu_run, vcpu).

So even if we fix kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run() we might need to also rework
handlers that run in that shallow exception context, if they rely on RCU for
something.

Thanks,
Mark.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm