On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 07:57:30AM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 11:28:24AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 8/19/22 09:02, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > On the Dell XPS 13 9370, Linux 5.18.16 prints the warning below:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 5.18.0-4-amd64
> > > (debian-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (gcc-11 (Debian 11.3.0-5) 11.3.0, GNU
> > > ld (GNU Binutils for Debian) 2.38.90.20220713) #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
> > > Debian 5.18.16-1 (2022-08-10)
> > > [ 0.000000] Command line: BOOT_IMAGE=/vmlinuz-5.18.0-4-amd64
> > > root=UUID=56f398e0-1e25-4fda-aa9f-611dece4b333 ro quiet
> > > […]
> > > [ 0.000000] DMI: Dell Inc. XPS 13 9370/0RMYH9, BIOS 1.21.0 07/06/2022
> > > […]
> > > [ 0.235418] sgx: EPC section 0x40200000-0x45f7ffff
> >
> > Hi Paul,
> >
> > Would you be able to send the entire dmesg, along with:
> >
> > cat /proc/iomem # (as root)
> > and
> > cpuid -1 --raw
> >
> > I'm suspecting either a BIOS problem. Reinette (cc'd) also thought this
> > might be a case of the SGX initialization getting a bit too far along
> > when it should have been disabled.
> >
> > We had some bugs where we didn't stop fast enough after spitting out the
> > "SGX Launch Control is locked..." errors.
>
> For some reason the pages do not get properly sanitized:
>
> /* sanity check: */
> WARN_ON(!list_empty(&sgx_dirty_page_list));
>
> EPC should be good, given that EREMOVE does not fail.
> If SGX would be disabled, also EREMOVE should fail.
Sorry forgot that in no circumstances we're printing the
error code inside __sgx_sanitize_pages(). I wrote a quick
patch to address this (attached) [*].
Paul,
Any chance to try the patch out? It's pretty hard to attach
e.g. kprobe to grab this info. Does it reproduce every single
time?
Alternatively: what kind of workload is triggering this?
I do own 2020 model XPS13, which might be able to
reproduce the same issue.
[*] Also: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sgx/20220825051827.246698-1-jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
BR, Jarkko
>From ddccefc8e864bd9973a5445202922b59760d3460 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:12:30 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] x86/sgx: Print EREMOVE return value in __sgx_sanitize_pages()
In the 2nd run of __sgx_sanitize_pages() print the error
message. All EREMOVE's should succeed. This will allow to
provide some additional clues, if not.
Cc: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c | 9 ++++++---
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
index 515e2a5f25bb..33354921c59f 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/sgx/main.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static LIST_HEAD(sgx_dirty_page_list);
* from the input list, and made available for the page allocator. SECS pages
* prepending their children in the input list are left intact.
*/
-static void __sgx_sanitize_pages(struct list_head *dirty_page_list)
+static void __sgx_sanitize_pages(struct list_head *dirty_page_list, bool verbose)
{
struct sgx_epc_page *page;
LIST_HEAD(dirty);
@@ -90,6 +90,9 @@ static void __sgx_sanitize_pages(struct list_head *dirty_page_list)
list_del(&page->list);
sgx_free_epc_page(page);
} else {
+ if (verbose)
+ pr_err_ratelimited(EREMOVE_ERROR_MESSAGE, ret, ret);
+
/* The page is not yet clean - move to the dirty list. */
list_move_tail(&page->list, &dirty);
}
@@ -394,8 +397,8 @@ static int ksgxd(void *p)
* Sanitize pages in order to recover from kexec(). The 2nd pass is
* required for SECS pages, whose child pages blocked EREMOVE.
*/
- __sgx_sanitize_pages(&sgx_dirty_page_list);
- __sgx_sanitize_pages(&sgx_dirty_page_list);
+ __sgx_sanitize_pages(&sgx_dirty_page_list, false);
+ __sgx_sanitize_pages(&sgx_dirty_page_list, true);
/* sanity check: */
WARN_ON(!list_empty(&sgx_dirty_page_list));
--
2.37.1
