Dear, Laszlo
Thanks for your detailed explanation.
On 2017/3/29 19:58, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> (This ought to be one of the longest address lists I've ever seen :)
> Thanks for the CC. I'm glad Shannon is already on the CC list. For good
> measure, I'm adding MST and Igor.)
>
> On 03/29/17 12:36, Achin Gupta wrote:
>> Hi gengdongjiu,
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 05:36:37PM +0800, gengdongjiu wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Laszlo/Biesheuvel/Qemu developer,
>>>
>>> Now I encounter a issue and want to consult with you in ARM64 platform， as described below:
>>>
>>> when guest OS happen synchronous or asynchronous abort, kvm needs
>>> to send the error address to Qemu or UEFI through sigbus to
>>> dynamically generate APEI table. from my investigation, there are
>>> two ways:
>>>
>>> (1) Qemu get the error address, and generate the APEI table, then
>>> notify UEFI to know this generation, then inject abort error to
>>> guest OS, guest OS read the APEI table.
>>> (2) Qemu get the error address, and let UEFI to generate the APEI
>>> table, then inject abort error to guest OS, guest OS read the APEI
>>> table.
>>
>> Just being pedantic! I don't think we are talking about creating the APEI table
>> dynamically here. The issue is: Once KVM has received an error that is destined
>> for a guest it will raise a SIGBUS to Qemu. Now before Qemu can inject the error
>> into the guest OS, a CPER (Common Platform Error Record) has to be generated
>> corresponding to the error source (GHES corresponding to memory subsystem,
>> processor etc) to allow the guest OS to do anything meaningful with the
>> error. So who should create the CPER is the question.
>>
>> At the EL3/EL2 interface (Secure Firmware and OS/Hypervisor), an error arrives
>> at EL3 and secure firmware (at EL3 or a lower secure exception level) is
>> responsible for creating the CPER. ARM is experimenting with using a Standalone
>> MM EDK2 image in the secure world to do the CPER creation. This will avoid
>> adding the same code in ARM TF in EL3 (better for security). The error will then
>> be injected into the OS/Hypervisor (through SEA/SEI/SDEI) through ARM Trusted
>> Firmware.
>>
>> Qemu is essentially fulfilling the role of secure firmware at the EL2/EL1
>> interface (as discussed with Christoffer below). So it should generate the CPER
>> before injecting the error.
>>
>> This is corresponds to (1) above apart from notifying UEFI (I am assuming you
>> mean guest UEFI). At this time, the guest OS already knows where to pick up the
>> CPER from through the HEST. Qemu has to create the CPER and populate its address
>> at the address exported in the HEST. Guest UEFI should not be involved in this
>> flow. Its job was to create the HEST at boot and that has been done by this
>> stage.
>>
>> Qemu folk will be able to add but it looks like support for CPER generation will
>> need to be added to Qemu. We need to resolve this.
>>
>> Do shout if I am missing anything above.
>
> After reading this email, the use case looks *very* similar to what
> we've just done with VMGENID for QEMU 2.9.
>
> We have a facility between QEMU and the guest firmware, called "ACPI
> linker/loader", with which QEMU instructs the firmware to
>
> - allocate and download blobs into guest RAM (AcpiNVS type memory) --
> ALLOCATE command,
>
> - relocate pointers in those blobs, to fields in other (or the same)
> blobs -- ADD_POINTER command,
>
> - set ACPI table checksums -- ADD_CHECKSUM command,
>
> - and send GPAs of fields within such blobs back to QEMU --
> WRITE_POINTER command.
>
> This is how I imagine we can map the facility to the current use case
> (note that this is the first time I read about HEST / GHES / CPER):
>
> etc/acpi/tables etc/hardware_errors
> ================ ==========================================
> +-----------+
> +--------------+ | address | +-> +--------------+
> | HEST + | registers | | | Error Status |
> + +------------+ | +---------+ | | Data Block 1 |
> | | GHES | --> | | address | --------+ | +------------+
> | | GHES | --> | | address | ------+ | | CPER |
> | | GHES | --> | | address | ----+ | | | CPER |
> | | GHES | --> | | address | -+ | | | | CPER |
> +-+------------+ +-+---------+ | | | +-+------------+
> | | |
> | | +---> +--------------+
> | | | Error Status |
> | | | Data Block 2 |
> | | | +------------+
> | | | | CPER |
> | | | | CPER |
> | | +-+------------+
> | |
> | +-----> +--------------+
> | | Error Status |
> | | Data Block 3 |
> | | +------------+
> | | | CPER |
> | +-+------------+
> |
> +--------> +--------------+
> | Error Status |
> | Data Block 4 |
> | +------------+
> | | CPER |
> | | CPER |
> | | CPER |
> +-+------------+
>
> (1) QEMU generates the HEST ACPI table. This table goes in the current
> "etc/acpi/tables" fw_cfg blob. Given N error sources, there will be N
> GHES objects in the HEST.
>
> (2) We introduce a new fw_cfg blob called "etc/hardware_errors". QEMU
> also populates this blob.
>
> (2a) Given N error sources, the (unnamed) table of address registers
> will contain N address registers.
>
> (2b) Given N error sources, the "etc/hardwre_errors" fw_cfg blob will
> also contain N Error Status Data Blocks.
>
> I don't know about the sizing (number of CPERs) each Error Status Data
> Block has to contain, but I understand it is all pre-allocated as far as
> the OS is concerned, which matches our capabilities well.
here I have a question. as you comment: " 'etc/hardwre_errors' fw_cfg blob will also contain N Error Status Data Blocks",
Because the CPER numbers is not fixed, how to assign each "Error Status Data Block" size using one "etc/hardwre_errors" fw_cfg blob.
when use one etc/hardwre_errors, will the N Error Status Data Block use one continuous buffer? as shown below. if so, maybe it not convenient for each data block size extension.
I see the bios_linker_loader_alloc will allocate one continuous buffer for a blob(such as VMGENID_GUID_FW_CFG_FILE)
/* Allocate guest memory for the Data fw_cfg blob */
bios_linker_loader_alloc(linker, VMGENID_GUID_FW_CFG_FILE, guid, 4096,
false /* page boundary, high memory */);
-> +--------------+
| HEST + | registers | | Error Status |
+ +------------+ | +---------+ | Data Block |
| | GHES | --> | | address | --------+-->| +------------+
| | GHES | --> | | address | ------+ | | CPER |
| | GHES | --> | | address | ----+ | | | CPER |
| | GHES | --> | | address | -+ | | | | CPER |
+-+------------+ +-+---------+ | | +---> +--------------+
| | | | CPER |
| | | | CPER |
| +-----> +--------------+
| | | CPER |
+--------> +--------------+
| | CPER |
| | CPER |
| | CPER |
+-+------------+
so how about we use separate etc/hardwre_errorsN for each Error Status status Block? then
etc/hardwre_errors0
etc/hardwre_errors1
...................
etc/hardwre_errors10
(the max N is 10)
the N can be one of below values, according to ACPI spec "Table 18-345 Hardware Error Notification Structure"
0 – Polled
1 – External Interrupt
2 – Local Interrupt
3 – SCI
4 – NMI
5 - CMCI
6 - MCE
7 - GPIO-Signal
8 - ARMv8 SEA
9 - ARMv8 SEI
10 - External Interrupt - GSIV
>
> (3) QEMU generates the ACPI linker/loader script for the firmware, as
> always.
>
> (3a) The HEST table is part of "etc/acpi/tables", which the firmware
> already allocates memory for, and downloads (because QEMU already
> generates an ALLOCATE linker/loader command for it already).
>
> (3b) QEMU will have to create another ALLOCATE command for the
> "etc/hardware_errors" blob. The firmware allocates memory for this blob,
> and downloads it.
>
> (4) QEMU generates, in the ACPI linker/loader script for the firwmare, N
> ADD_POINTER commands, which point the GHES."Error Status
> Address" fields in the HEST table, to the corresponding address
> registers in the downloaded "etc/hardware_errors" blob.
>
> (5) QEMU generates an ADD_CHECKSUM command for the firmware, so that the
> HEST table is correctly checksummed after executing the N ADD_POINTER
> commands from (4).
>
> (6) QEMU generates N ADD_POINTER commands for the firmware, pointing the
> address registers (located in guest memory, in the downloaded
> "etc/hardware_errors" blob) to the respective Error Status Data Blocks.
>
> (7) (This is the trick.) For this step, we need a third, write-only
> fw_cfg blob, called "etc/hardware_errors_addr". Through that blob, the
> firmware can send back the guest-side allocation addresses to QEMU.
>
> Namely, the "etc/hardware_errors_addr" blob contains N 8-byte entries.
> QEMU generates N WRITE_POINTER commands for the firmware.
>
> For error source K (0 <= K < N), QEMU instructs the firmware to
> calculate the guest address of Error Status Data Block K, from the
> QEMU-dictated offset within "etc/hardware_errors", and from the
> guest-determined allocation base address for "etc/hardware_errors". The
> firmware then writes the calculated address back to fw_cfg file
> "etc/hardware_errors_addr", at offset K*8, according to the
> WRITE_POINTER command.
>
> This way QEMU will know the GPA of each Error Status Data Block.
>
> (In fact this can be simplified to a single WRITE_POINTER command: the
> address of the "address register table" can be sent back to QEMU as
> well, which already contains all Error Status Data Block addresses.)
>
> (8) When QEMU gets SIGBUS from the kernel -- I hope that's going to come
> through a signalfd -- QEMU can format the CPER right into guest memory,
> and then inject whatever interrupt (or assert whatever GPIO line) is
> necessary for notifying the guest.
>
> (9) This notification (in virtual hardware) can either be handled by the
> guest kernel stand-alone, or else the guest kernel can invoke an ACPI
> event handler method with it (which would be in the DSDT or one of the
> SSDTs, also generated by QEMU). The ACPI event handler method could
> invoke the specific guest kernel driver for errror handling via a
> Notify() operation.
>
> I'm attracted to the above design because:
> - it would leave the firmware alone after OS boot, and
> - it would leave the firmware blissfully ignorant about HEST, GHES,
> CPER, and the like. (That's why QEMU's ACPI linker/loader was invented
> in the first place.)
>
> Thanks
> Laszlo
>
>>> Do you think which modules generates the APEI table is better? UEFI or Qemu?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2017/3/28 21:40, James Morse wrote:
>>>> Hi gengdongjiu,
>>>>
>>>> On 28/03/17 13:16, gengdongjiu wrote:
>>>>> On 2017/3/28 19:54, Achin Gupta wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 01:23:28PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 11:48:08AM +0100, James Morse wrote:
>>>>>>>> On the host, part of UEFI is involved to generate the CPER records.
>>>>>>>> In a guest?, I don't know.
>>>>>>>> Qemu could generate the records, or drive some other component to do it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I am beginning to understand this a bit. Since the guet UEFI
>>>>>>> instance is specifically built for the machine it runs on, QEMU's virt
>>>>>>> machine in this case, they could simply agree (by some contract) to
>>>>>>> place the records at some specific location in memory, and if the guest
>>>>>>> kernel asks its guest UEFI for that location, things should just work by
>>>>>>> having logic in QEMU to process error reports and populate guest memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this how others see the world too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think so!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIU, the memory where CPERs will reside should be specified in a GHES entry in
>>>>>> the HEST. Is this not the case with a guest kernel i.e. the guest UEFI creates a
>>>>>> HEST for the guest Kernel?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If so, then the question is how the guest UEFI finds out where QEMU (acting as
>>>>>> EL3 firmware) will populate the CPERs. This could either be a contract between
>>>>>> the two or a guest DXE driver uses the MM_COMMUNICATE call (see [1]) to ask QEMU
>>>>>> where the memory is.
>>>>>
>>>>> whether invoke the guest UEFI will be complex? not see the advantage. it seems x86 Qemu
>>>>> directly generate the ACPI table, but I am not sure, we are checking the qemu
>>>> logical.
>>>>> let Qemu generate CPER record may be clear.
>>>>
>>>> At boot UEFI in the guest will need to make sure the areas of memory that may be
>>>> used for CPER records are reserved. Whether UEFI or Qemu decides where these are
>>>> needs deciding, (but probably not here)...
>>>>
>>>> At runtime, when an error has occurred, I agree it would be simpler (fewer
>>>> components involved) if Qemu generates the CPER records. But if UEFI made the
>>>> memory choice above they need to interact and it gets complicated again. The
>>>> CPER records are defined in the UEFI spec, so I would expect UEFI to contain
>>>> code to generate/parse them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> James
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>
>
> .
>
