On 24/02/2017 10:59, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 05:35:17PM +0800, Herongguang (Stephen) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017/2/24 10:23, Herongguang (Stephen) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/2/22 22:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22/02/2017 14:31, Chris Friesen wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you reproduce it with kernel 4.8+? I'm suspecting commmit
>>>>>> 4e59516a12a6 ("kvm: vmx: ensure VMCS is current while enabling PML",
>>>>>> 2016-07-14) to be the fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't easily try with a newer kernel, the software package we're using
>>>>> has kernel patches that would have to be ported.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm at a conference, don't really have time to set up a pair of test
>>>>> machines from scratch with a custom kernel.
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Gaohuai and Rongguang can help with this too.
>>>>
>>>> Paolo
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> Yes, we are looking into and testing this.
>>>
>>> I think this can result in any memory corruption, if VM1 writes its
>>> PML buffer into VM2’s VMCS (since sched_in/sched_out notifier of VM1
>>> is not registered yet), then VM1 is destroyed (hence its PML buffer
>>> is freed back to kernel), after that, VM2 starts migration, so CPU
>>> logs VM2’s dirty GFNS into a freed memory, results in any memory corruption.
>>>
>>> As its severity, this commit (http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=4e59516a12a6ef6dcb660cb3a3f70c64bd60cfec)
>>> is eligible to back port to kernel stable.
>>
>> Hi, Greg, can you cherry pick commit 4e59516a12a6ef6dcb660cb3a3f70c64bd60cfec to 4.4-y?
>
> If the KVM maintainers say it is ok to do so, yes, I will.
Yes, he beat me by minutes. :)
Paolo
