Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: Add missing noinstr to arch_local*() helpers

["Jürgen Groß" <jgross@suse.com>]

On 11.08.20 09:00, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 17:19, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 02:08PM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 14:04, Jürgen Groß <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 07.08.20 13:38, Marco Elver wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:35PM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> ...
>>>>>> I think CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL shouldn't matter, but I'm not completely
>>>>>> sure about that. CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS would be my primary suspect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, PARAVIRT_XXL doesn't make a different. When disabling
>>>>> PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS, however, the warnings go away.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for testing!
>>>>
>>>> I take it you are doing the tests in a KVM guest?
>>>
>>> Yes, correct.
>>>
>>>> If so I have a gut feeling that the use of local_irq_save() and
>>>> local_irq_restore() in kvm_wait() might be fishy. I might be completely
>>>> wrong here, though.
>>>
>>> Happy to help debug more, although I might need patches or pointers
>>> what to play with.
>>>
>>>> BTW, I think Xen's variant of pv spinlocks is fine (no playing with IRQ
>>>> on/off).
>>>>
>>>> Hyper-V seems to do the same as KVM, and kicking another vcpu could be
>>>> problematic as well, as it is just using IPI.
>>
>> I experimented a bit more, and the below patch seems to solve the
>> warnings. However, that was based on your pointer about kvm_wait(), and
>> I can't quite tell if it is the right solution.
>>
>> My hypothesis here is simply that kvm_wait() may be called in a place
>> where we get the same case I mentioned to Peter,
>>
>>          raw_local_irq_save(); /* or other IRQs off without tracing */
>>          ...
>>          kvm_wait() /* IRQ state tracing gets confused */
>>          ...
>>          raw_local_irq_restore();
>>
>> and therefore, using raw variants in kvm_wait() works. It's also safe
>> because it doesn't call any other libraries that would result in corrupt
>> IRQ state AFAIK.
> 
> Just to follow-up, it'd still be nice to fix this. Suggestions?
> 
> I could send the below as a patch, but can only go off my above
> hypothesis and the fact that syzbot is happier, so not entirely
> convincing.

Peter has told me via IRC he will look soon further into this.

Your finding suggests that the pv-lock implementation for Hyper-V
needs some tweaking, too. For that purpose I'm adding Wei to Cc.


Juergen

> 
> Thanks,
> -- Marco
> 
>> ------ >8 ------
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> index 233c77d056c9..1d412d1466f0 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
>> @@ -797,7 +797,7 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>>          if (in_nmi())
>>                  return;
>>
>> -       local_irq_save(flags);
>> +       raw_local_irq_save(flags);
>>
>>          if (READ_ONCE(*ptr) != val)
>>                  goto out;
>> @@ -810,10 +810,10 @@ static void kvm_wait(u8 *ptr, u8 val)
>>          if (arch_irqs_disabled_flags(flags))
>>                  halt();
>>          else
>> -               safe_halt();
>> +               raw_safe_halt();
>>
>>   out:
>> -       local_irq_restore(flags);
>> +       raw_local_irq_restore(flags);
>>   }
>>
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> 

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization