Hi Paolo,
Thanks for the patch.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 20:17, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 29/09/20 15:39, Qian Cai wrote:
> > On Tue, 2020-09-29 at 14:26 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 29/09/20 13:59, Qian Cai wrote:
> >>> WARN_ON_ONCE(!allow_smaller_maxphyaddr);
> >>>
> >>> I noticed the origin patch did not have this WARN_ON_ONCE(), but the
> >>> mainline
> >>> commit b96e6506c2ea ("KVM: x86: VMX: Make smaller physical guest address
> >>> space
> >>> support user-configurable") does have it for some reasons.
> >>
> >> Because that part of the code should not be reached. The exception
> >> bitmap is set up with
> >>
> >> if (!vmx_need_pf_intercept(vcpu))
> >> eb &= ~(1u << PF_VECTOR);
> >>
> >> where
> >>
> >> static inline bool vmx_need_pf_intercept(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> {
> >> if (!enable_ept)
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> return allow_smaller_maxphyaddr &&
> >> cpuid_maxphyaddr(vcpu) < boot_cpu_data.x86_phys_bits;
> >> }
> >>
> >> We shouldn't get here if "enable_ept && !allow_smaller_maxphyaddr",
> >> which implies vmx_need_pf_intercept(vcpu) == false. So the warning is
> >> genuine; I've sent a patch.
> >
> > Care to provide a link to the patch? Just curious.
> >
>
> Ok, I haven't sent it yet. :) But here it is:
>
> commit 608e2791d7353e7d777bf32038ca3e7d548155a4 (HEAD -> kvm-master)
> Author: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Sep 29 08:31:32 2020 -0400
>
> KVM: VMX: update PFEC_MASK/PFEC_MATCH together with PF intercept
>
> The PFEC_MASK and PFEC_MATCH fields in the VMCS reverse the meaning of
> the #PF intercept bit in the exception bitmap when they do not match.
> This means that, if PFEC_MASK and/or PFEC_MATCH are set, the
> hypervisor can get a vmexit for #PF exceptions even when the
> corresponding bit is clear in the exception bitmap.
>
> This is unexpected and is promptly reported as a WARN_ON_ONCE.
> To fix it, reset PFEC_MASK and PFEC_MATCH when the #PF intercept
> is disabled (as is common with enable_ept && !allow_smaller_maxphyaddr).
I have tested this patch on an x86_64 machine and the reported issue is gone.
>
> Reported-by: Qian Cai <cai@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index f0384e93548a..f4e9c310032a 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -794,6 +794,18 @@ void update_exception_bitmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> */
> if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> eb |= get_vmcs12(vcpu)->exception_bitmap;
> + else {
> + /*
> + * If EPT is enabled, #PF is only trapped if MAXPHYADDR is mismatched
> + * between guest and host. In that case we only care about present
> + * faults. For vmcs02, however, PFEC_MASK and PFEC_MATCH are set in
> + * prepare_vmcs02_rare.
> + */
> + bool selective_pf_trap = enable_ept && (eb & (1u << PF_VECTOR));
> + int mask = selective_pf_trap ? PFERR_PRESENT_MASK : 0;
> + vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, mask);
> + vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, mask);
> + }
>
> vmcs_write32(EXCEPTION_BITMAP, eb);
> }
> @@ -4355,16 +4367,6 @@ static void init_vmcs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> vmx->pt_desc.guest.output_mask = 0x7F;
> vmcs_write64(GUEST_IA32_RTIT_CTL, 0);
> }
> -
> - /*
> - * If EPT is enabled, #PF is only trapped if MAXPHYADDR is mismatched
> - * between guest and host. In that case we only care about present
> - * faults.
> - */
> - if (enable_ept) {
> - vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MASK, PFERR_PRESENT_MASK);
> - vmcs_write32(PAGE_FAULT_ERROR_CODE_MATCH, PFERR_PRESENT_MASK);
> - }
> }
>
> static void vmx_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event)
>
test log link
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1813223
- Naresh
