[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 11/13] x86/paravirt: Add paravirt alternatives infrastructure
On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> On 10/06/2017 10:32 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 04:35:03PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT >>>>> +/* >>>>> + * Paravirt alternatives are applied much earlier than normal >>>>> alternatives. >>>>> + * They are only applied when running on a hypervisor. They replace some >>>>> + * native instructions with calls to pv ops. >>>>> + */ >>>>> +void __init apply_pv_alternatives(void) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_PV_OPS); >>>> Not for Xen HVM guests. >>> From what I can tell, HVM guests still use pv_time_ops and >>> pv_mmu_ops.exit_mmap, right? >>> >>>>> + apply_alternatives(__pv_alt_instructions, __pv_alt_instructions_end); >>>>> +} >>>> This is a problem (at least for Xen PV guests): >>>> apply_alternatives()->text_poke_early()->local_irq_save()->...'cli'->death. >>> Ah, right. >>> >>>> It might be possible not to turn off/on the interrupts in this >>>> particular case since the guest probably won't be able to handle an >>>> interrupt at this point anyway. >>> Yeah, that should work. For Xen and for the other hypervisors, this is >>> called well before irq init, so interrupts can't be handled yet anyway. >> There is also another problem: >> >> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP >> [ 1.312901] Modules linked in: >> [ 1.313389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.14.0-rc4+ #6 >> [ 1.313878] task: ffff88003e2c0000 task.stack: ffffc9000038c000 >> [ 1.314360] RIP: 10000e030:entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1/0xa5 >> [ 1.314854] RSP: e02b:ffffc9000038ff50 EFLAGS: 00010046 >> [ 1.315336] RAX: 000000000000000c RBX: 000055f550168040 RCX: >> 00007fcfc959f59a >> [ 1.315827] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: >> 0000000000000000 >> [ 1.316315] RBP: 000000000000000a R08: 000000000000037f R09: >> 0000000000000064 >> [ 1.316805] R10: 000000001f89cbf5 R11: ffff88003e2c0000 R12: >> 00007fcfc958ad60 >> [ 1.317300] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 000055f550185954 R15: >> 0000000000001000 >> [ 1.317801] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88003f800000(0000) >> knlGS:0000000000000000 >> [ 1.318267] CS: e033 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >> [ 1.318750] CR2: 00007fcfc97ab218 CR3: 000000003c88e000 CR4: >> 0000000000042660 >> [ 1.319235] Call Trace: >> [ 1.319700] Code: 51 50 57 56 52 51 6a da 41 50 41 51 41 52 41 53 48 >> 83 ec 30 65 4c 8b 1c 25 c0 d2 00 00 41 f7 03 df 39 08 90 0f 85 a5 00 00 >> 00 50 <ff> 15 9c 95 d0 ff 58 48 3d 4c 01 00 00 77 0f 4c 89 d1 ff 14 c5 >> [ 1.321161] RIP: entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x1/0xa5 RSP: ffffc9000038ff50 >> [ 1.344255] ---[ end trace d7cb8cd6cd7c294c ]--- >> [ 1.345009] Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill init! >> exitcode=0x0000000b >> >> >> All code >> ======== >> 0: 51 push %rcx >> 1: 50 push %rax >> 2: 57 push %rdi >> 3: 56 push %rsi >> 4: 52 push %rdx >> 5: 51 push %rcx >> 6: 6a da pushq $0xffffffffffffffda >> 8: 41 50 push %r8 >> a: 41 51 push %r9 >> c: 41 52 push %r10 >> e: 41 53 push %r11 >> 10: 48 83 ec 30 sub $0x30,%rsp >> 14: 65 4c 8b 1c 25 c0 d2 mov %gs:0xd2c0,%r11 >> 1b: 00 00 >> 1d: 41 f7 03 df 39 08 90 testl $0x900839df,(%r11) >> 24: 0f 85 a5 00 00 00 jne 0xcf >> 2a: 50 push %rax >> 2b:* ff 15 9c 95 d0 ff callq *-0x2f6a64(%rip) # >> 0xffffffffffd095cd <-- trapping instruction >> 31: 58 pop %rax >> 32: 48 3d 4c 01 00 00 cmp $0x14c,%rax >> 38: 77 0f ja 0x49 >> 3a: 4c 89 d1 mov %r10,%rcx >> 3d: ff .byte 0xff >> 3e: 14 c5 adc $0xc5,%al >> >> >> so the original 'cli' was replaced with the pv call but to me the offset >> looks a bit off, no? Shouldn't it always be positive? > callq takes a 32bit signed displacement, so jumping back by up to 2G is > perfectly legitimate. Yes, but ostr@workbase> nm vmlinux | grep entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath ffffffff817365dd t entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath ostr@workbase> nm vmlinux | grep " pv_irq_ops" ffffffff81c2dbc0 D pv_irq_ops ostr@workbase> so pv_irq_ops.irq_disable is about 5MB ahead of where we are now. (I didn't mean that x86 instruction set doesn't allow negative displacement, I was trying to say that pv_irq_ops always live further down) > > The #GP[0] however means that whatever 8 byte value was found at > -0x2f6a64(%rip) was a non-canonical address. > > One option is that the pvops structure hasn't been initialised properly, It was, I did check that. And just to make sure I re-initialized it before alt instructions were rewritten. > but an alternative is that the relocation wasn't processed correctly, > and the code is trying to reference something which isn't a function > pointer. Let me see if I can poke at what's there. -boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |