[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] PV guests and APIC interaction


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 14:20:38 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsFNBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABzSlBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPsLBegQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86M7BTQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAcLB XwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
  • Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel List <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sergey Dyasli <sergey.dyasli@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Oct 2018 13:20:49 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 04/10/18 11:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 03.10.18 at 13:56, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> A bug has recently been discovered internally, where a 4.14 dom0 was
>> observed to be doing this:
>>
>> (XEN) [   16.035377] emul-priv-op.c:1166:d0v0 Domain attempted WRMSR 
>> 0000001b from 0x00000000fee00d00 to 0x00000000fee00100
>> (XEN) [   16.035392] emul-priv-op.c:1166:d0v0 Domain attempted WRMSR 
>> 0000001b from 0x00000000fee00d00 to 0x00000000fee00900
>> ...
>> (XEN) [   18.798336] emul-priv-op.c:1166:d0v1 Domain attempted WRMSR 
>> 0000001b from 0x00000000fee00c00 to 0x00000000fee00000
>> (XEN) [   18.798350] emul-priv-op.c:1166:d0v1 Domain attempted WRMSR 
>> 0000001b from 0x00000000fee00c00 to 0x00000000fee00800
>>
>> This is dom0 finding x2apic enabled in the APIC, and trying to cycle it
>> around to xapic mode, and raises multiple issues.
>>
>> First and foremost, PV guests don't have an APIC and shouldn't be
>> playing with it at all.
> This is the crucial point, imo. It is one of the downsides of the pv-ops
> approach (allowing a single kernel binary to be used both without and
> with Xen) that code like that dealing with the LAPIC can't simply be
> compiled out to make sure it can't possibly be reached.

It doesn't need to be compiled out, but it does need to be suitably
untouched when started via the PV path.

At least part of this problem is a Linux PVOps bug.

>
>> It turns out that Xen advertise the hardware APIC bit to PV guests,
>> which isn't necessarily always set.  On top of that, the default
>> read/write-ignore behaviour of MSR lets Linux get into a position where
>> it thinks it is actually making real changes to the APIC mode.
>>
>> Architecturally speaking, if we offer the APIC bit, we should honour
>> read/write requests correctly.  Obviously, this isn't a viable option -
>> hiding the APIC bit and raising #GP's is the only
>> architecturally-correct way to do this.
>>
>> Given that we've already played "how much does Linux explode if it
>> thinks there is no APIC", does anyone have any suggestions for how to
>> resolve this without breaking Linux?
> Hiding the APIC bits is not an options, afaict, as that would also
> imply absence of any IO-APICs.

I don't think you should draw any implication between the two.

The APIC bit is a hardware fast-forward, so can already be cleared on
hardware with IO-APICs.  The ACPI tables describe the IO-APICs, and that
is the only way any software has of finding them.

Furthermore, for a system which sets all the relevent "no legacy
hardware" bits in ACPI, there is no need to have an IO-APIC at all. 
There is provision in the latest PCI spec to have devices which are not
capable of generating legacy interrupts.

> What I don't understand is why
> we surface X2APIC to PV guests. Wouldn't hiding that bit alone
> address the specific issue above, even if the more general (xAPIC
> related) one can't reasonably be addressed?

From the cpumask work:

"Must expose hosts HTT and X2APIC value so a guest using native
CPUID can correctly interpret other leaves which cannot be
masked."

although to be perfectly honest, I don't remember exactly why.  It might
be to do with the visibility of leaf 0xb.

Furthermore, hiding the x2APIC feature but allowing APICBASE to be read
will cause extra confusion to the guest if it finds EXTD set.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.