Re: [PATCH] x86: kvm: reset the bootstrap processor when it gets an INIT

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 06:34:03PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-03-11 18:23, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 04:36:33PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2013-03-11 15:23, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>> Il 11/03/2013 15:05, Gleb Natapov ha scritto:
> >>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 03:01:40PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>> We are not moving away from mp_state, we are moving away from using
> >>>>>> mp_state for signaling because with nested virt INIT does not always
> >>>>>> change mp_state, not only that it can change mp_state long after signal
> >>>>>> is received after vmx off is done.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BTW, for that to happen, we will also need to influence the INIT level.
> >>>>> Unless I misread the spec, INIT is blocked while in root mode, and if
> >>>>> you deassert INIT before leaving root (vmxoff, vmenter), nothing
> >>>>> actually happens. So what matters is the INIT signal level at the exit
> >>>>> of root mode.
> >>>>>
> >>>> You are talking about INIT# signal received via CPU pin, right? I think
> >>>> INIT send by IPI cannot go away.
> >>>
> >>> Neither can go away.  For INIT sent by IPI, 10.4.7 says:
> >>>
> >>> Only the Pentium and P6 family processors support the INIT-deassert IPI.
> >>> An INIT-disassert IPI has no affect on the state of the APIC, other than
> >>> to reload the arbitration ID register with the value in the APIC ID
> >>> register.
> >>>
> >>> 18.27.1 also says that "In the local APIC, NMI and INIT (except for INIT
> >>> deassert) are always treated as edge triggered interrupts".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> For INIT#, the ICH9 chipset says that "INIT# is driven low for 16 PCI
> >>> clocks" when a soft reset is requested.  So we can guess that INIT# is
> >>> also edge-triggered.
> >>
> >> Ah, ok. So, virtually, INIT stays asserted until it can be delivered in
> >> form of a reset or a vmexit.
> >>
> > vmexit clears it?
> 
> It has to. Otherwise, it would hit the host on vmxoff.
> 
Why do you thing this is not happening?

Look at [1] page 10 "VMX and INIT blocking". Do you think they were
lucky to hit CPU while it was in a root mode?

[1] http://www.invisiblethingslab.com/resources/2011/Software%20Attacks%20on%20Intel%20VT-d.pdf

--
			Gleb.