Anirudh Rayabharam <anirudh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 02:36:44PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Anirudh Rayabharam <anirudh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > From: Anirudh Rayabharam (Microsoft) <anirudh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > 9636be85cc5b ("x86/hyperv: Fix hyperv_pcpu_input_arg handling when CPUs go
>> > online/offline") introduces a new cpuhp state for hyperv initialization.
>> >
>> > cpuhp_setup_state() returns the state number if state is CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN
>> > or CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN and 0 for all other states. For the hyperv case,
>> > since a new cpuhp state was introduced it would return 0. However,
>> > in hv_machine_shutdown(), the cpuhp_remove_state() call is conditioned upon
>> > "hyperv_init_cpuhp > 0". This will never be true and so hv_cpu_die() won't be
>> > called on all CPUs. This means the VP assist page won't be reset. When the
>> > kexec kernel tries to setup the VP assist page again, the hypervisor corrupts
>> > the memory region of the old VP assist page causing a panic in case the kexec
>> > kernel is using that memory elsewhere. This was originally fixed in dfe94d4086e4
>> > ("x86/hyperv: Fix kexec panic/hang issues").
>> >
>> > Set hyperv_init_cpuhp to CPUHP_AP_HYPERV_ONLINE upon successful setup so that
>> > the hyperv cpuhp state is removed correctly on kexec and the necessary cleanup
>> > takes place.
>> >
>> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Fixes: 9636be85cc5b ("x86/hyperv: Fix hyperv_pcpu_input_arg handling when CPUs go online/offline")
>> > Signed-off-by: Anirudh Rayabharam (Microsoft) <anirudh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c | 4 ++--
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
>> > index 17a71e92a343..81d1981a75d1 100644
>> > --- a/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
>> > +++ b/arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c
>> > @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ void __init hyperv_init(void)
>> >
>> > register_syscore_ops(&hv_syscore_ops);
>> >
>> > - hyperv_init_cpuhp = cpuhp;
>> > + hyperv_init_cpuhp = CPUHP_AP_HYPERV_ONLINE;
>>
>> Do we really need 'hyperv_init_cpuhp' at all? I.e. post-change (which
>> LGTM btw), I can only see one usage in hv_machine_shutdown():
>>
>> if (kexec_in_progress && hyperv_init_cpuhp > 0)
>> cpuhp_remove_state(hyperv_init_cpuhp);
>>
>> and I'm wondering if the 'hyperv_init_cpuhp' check is really
>> needed. This only case where this check would fail is if we're crashing
>> in between ms_hyperv_init_platform() and hyperv_init() afaiu. Does it
>
> Or if we fail to setup the cpuhp state for some reason but don't
> actually crash and then later do a kexec?
I see this can happen for CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN/CPUHP_BP_PREPARE_DYN
because we run out of free slots (40/20), but here we have our own
dedicated CPUHP_AP_HYPERV_ONLINE and other failure paths seem to be
exotic...
>
> I guess I was just trying to be extra safe and make sure we have
> actually setup the cpuhp state before calling cpuhp_remove_state()
> for it. However, looking elsewhere in the kernel code I don't
> see anybody doing this for custom states...
>
>> hurt if we try cpuhp_remove_state() anyway?
>
> cpuhp_invoke_callback() would trigger a WARNING if we try to remove a
> cpuhp state that was never setup.
>
> 184 if (cpuhp_step_empty(bringup, step)) {
> 185 WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> 186 return 0;
> 187 }
>
Personally, I'd say that getting an extra WARN for such a corner case
(failing to setup cpuhp state or crashing in between
ms_hyperv_init_platform() and hyperv_init()) is OK.
Alternatively, we can convert hyperv_init_cpuhp to a boolean to make it
a bit more staitforward but as it's uncomon to do it for other states,
it's likely an overkill.
--
Vitaly
