Re: [PATCH v4 45/75] x86/sev-es: Adjust #VC IST Stack on entering NMI handler

Joerg Roedel
2020-07-15T10:27:00Z

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 11:47:02AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 02:08:47PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:

> DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(sev_es_enabled_key);
>
> static __always_inline void sev_es_foo()
> {
> if (static_branch_unlikely(&sev_es_enabled_key))
> __sev_es_foo();
> }
>
> So that normal people will only see an extra NOP?

Yes, that is a good idea, I will use a static key for these cases.

> > +static bool on_vc_stack(unsigned long sp)
>
> noinstr or __always_inline

Will add __always_inline, thanks.

> > +/*
> > + * This function handles the case when an NMI or an NMI-like exception
> > + * like #DB is raised in the #VC exception handler entry code. In this
>
> I've yet to find you handle the NMI-like cases..

The comment is not 100% accurate anymore, I will update it. Initially
#DB was an NMI-like case, but I figured that with .text.noinstr and the
way the #VC entry code switches stacks, there is no #DB special handling
necessary anymore.

> > + * case the IST entry for VC must be adjusted, so that any subsequent VC
> > + * exception will not overwrite the stack contents of the interrupted VC
> > + * handler.
> > + *
> > + * The IST entry is adjusted unconditionally so that it can be also be
> > + * unconditionally back-adjusted in sev_es_nmi_exit(). Otherwise a
> > + * nested nmi_exit() call (#VC->NMI->#DB) may back-adjust the IST entry
> > + * too early.
>
> Is this comment accurate, I cannot find the patch touching
> nmi_enter/exit()?

Right, will update that too. I had the sev-es NMI stack adjustment in
nmi_enter/exit first, but needed to move it out because the possible DR7
access needs the #VC stack already adjusted.

> > + */
> > +void noinstr sev_es_ist_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long old_ist, new_ist;
> > + unsigned long *p;
> > +
> > + if (!sev_es_active())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Read old IST entry */
> > + old_ist = __this_cpu_read(cpu_tss_rw.x86_tss.ist[IST_INDEX_VC]);
> > +
> > + /* Make room on the IST stack */
> > + if (on_vc_stack(regs->sp))
> > + new_ist = ALIGN_DOWN(regs->sp, 8) - sizeof(old_ist);
> > + else
> > + new_ist = old_ist - sizeof(old_ist);
> > +
> > + /* Store old IST entry */
> > + p = (unsigned long *)new_ist;
> > + *p = old_ist;
> > +
> > + /* Set new IST entry */
> > + this_cpu_write(cpu_tss_rw.x86_tss.ist[IST_INDEX_VC], new_ist);
> > +}
> > +
> > +void noinstr sev_es_ist_exit(void)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long ist;
> > + unsigned long *p;
> > +
> > + if (!sev_es_active())
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Read IST entry */
> > + ist = __this_cpu_read(cpu_tss_rw.x86_tss.ist[IST_INDEX_VC]);
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(ist == __this_cpu_ist_top_va(VC)))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + /* Read back old IST entry and write it to the TSS */
> > + p = (unsigned long *)ist;
> > + this_cpu_write(cpu_tss_rw.x86_tss.ist[IST_INDEX_VC], *p);
> > +}
>
> That's pretty disguisting :-(

Yeah, but its needed because ... IST :(
I am open for suggestions on how to make it less disgusting. Or maybe
you like it more if you think of it as a software implementation of what
hardware should actually do to make IST less painful.

Regards,

Joerg