Re: [PATCH] mshv: Make MSHV mutually exclusive with KEXEC

[Mukesh R <mrathor@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 1/28/26 15:08, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 11:56:02AM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>> On 1/27/26 09:47, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 05:39:49PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/26 16:21, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 03:07:18PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/26/26 12:43, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 12:20:09PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 1/25/26 14:39, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:16:33PM -0800, Mukesh R wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/26 14:20, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The MSHV driver deposits kernel-allocated pages to the hypervisor during
>>>>>>>>>>> runtime and never withdraws them. This creates a fundamental incompatibility
>>>>>>>>>>> with KEXEC, as these deposited pages remain unavailable to the new kernel
>>>>>>>>>>> loaded via KEXEC, leading to potential system crashes upon kernel accessing
>>>>>>>>>>> hypervisor deposited pages.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Make MSHV mutually exclusive with KEXEC until proper page lifecycle
>>>>>>>>>>> management is implemented.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@linux.microsoft.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>        drivers/hv/Kconfig |    1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>        1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hv/Kconfig b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>>>> index 7937ac0cbd0f..cfd4501db0fa 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/hv/Kconfig
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ config MSHV_ROOT
>>>>>>>>>>>        	# e.g. When withdrawing memory, the hypervisor gives back 4k pages in
>>>>>>>>>>>        	# no particular order, making it impossible to reassemble larger pages
>>>>>>>>>>>        	depends on PAGE_SIZE_4KB
>>>>>>>>>>> +	depends on !KEXEC
>>>>>>>>>>>        	select EVENTFD
>>>>>>>>>>>        	select VIRT_XFER_TO_GUEST_WORK
>>>>>>>>>>>        	select HMM_MIRROR
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Will this affect CRASH kexec? I see few CONFIG_CRASH_DUMP in kexec.c
>>>>>>>>>> implying that crash dump might be involved. Or did you test kdump
>>>>>>>>>> and it was fine?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it will. Crash kexec depends on normal kexec functionality, so it
>>>>>>>>> will be affected as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So not sure I understand the reason for this patch. We can just block
>>>>>>>> kexec if there are any VMs running, right? Doing this would mean any
>>>>>>>> further developement would be without a ver important and major feature,
>>>>>>>> right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is an option. But until it's implemented and merged, a user mshv
>>>>>>> driver gets into a situation where kexec is broken in a non-obvious way.
>>>>>>> The system may crash at any time after kexec, depending on whether the
>>>>>>> new kernel touches the pages deposited to hypervisor or not. This is a
>>>>>>> bad user experience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I understand that. But with this we cannot collect core and debug any
>>>>>> crashes. I was thinking there would be a quick way to prohibit kexec
>>>>>> for update via notifier or some other quick hack. Did you already
>>>>>> explore that and didn't find anything, hence this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This quick hack you mention isn't quick in the upstream kernel as there
>>>>> is no hook to interrupt kexec process except the live update one.
>>>>
>>>> That's the one we want to interrupt and block right? crash kexec
>>>> is ok and should be allowed. We can document we don't support kexec
>>>> for update for now.
>>>>
>>>>> I sent an RFC for that one but given todays conversation details is
>>>>> won't be accepted as is.
>>>>
>>>> Are you taking about this?
>>>>
>>>>           "mshv: Add kexec safety for deposited pages"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>> Making mshv mutually exclusive with kexec is the only viable option for
>>>>> now given time constraints.
>>>>> It is intended to be replaced with proper page lifecycle management in
>>>>> the future.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that could take a long time and imo we cannot just disable KEXEC
>>>> completely. What we want is just block kexec for updates from some
>>>> mshv file for now, we an print during boot that kexec for updates is
>>>> not supported on mshv. Hope that makes sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The trade-off here is between disabling kexec support and having the
>>> kernel crash after kexec in a non-obvious way. This affects both regular
>>> kexec and crash kexec.
>>
>> crash kexec on baremetal is not affected, hence disabling that
>> doesn't make sense as we can't debug crashes then on bm.
>>
> 
> Bare metal support is not currently relevant, as it is not available.
> This is the upstream kernel, and this driver will be accessible to
> third-party customers beginning with kernel 6.19 for running their
> kernels in Azure L1VH, so consistency is required.

Well, without crashdump support, customers will not be running anything
anywhere.

Thanks,
-Mukesh

> Thanks,
> Stanislav
> 
>> Let me think and explore a bit, and if I come up with something, I'll
>> send a patch here. If nothing, then we can do this as last resort.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Mukesh
>>
>>
>>> It?s a pity we can?t apply a quick hack to disable only regular kexec.
>>> However, since crash kexec would hit the same issues, until we have a
>>> proper state transition for deposted pages, the best workaround for now
>>> is to reset the hypervisor state on every kexec, which needs design,
>>> work, and testing.
>>>
>>> Disabling kexec is the only consistent way to handle this in the
>>> upstream kernel at the moment.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Stanislav
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Mukesh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Stanislav
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Mukesh
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefor it should be explicitly forbidden as it's essentially not
>>>>>>> supported yet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Stanislav
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Stanislav
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> -Mukesh