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

Re: [Xen-devel] XenGT is still regressed on master


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 13:37:15 +0000
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQINBFLhNn8BEADVhE+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+cWwARAQABtClBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPokCOgQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI 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 TQTBLzDKXok86LkCDQRS4TZ/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 uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAYkC HwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/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>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 13:38:10 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 08/03/2019 11:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 07.03.19 at 13:46, <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> We've noticed that there is still a regression with p2m_ioreq_server P2M
>> type on master. Since the commit 940faf0279 (x86/HVM: split page
> Afaics it's 3bdec530a5. I'm also slightly confused by the use of "still":
> Iirc so far I've had only an informal indication of the problem, without
> any details, from Andrew.

I believe the "still" refers to the identified changeset breaking GVT-g,
and your followup series "[PATCH 0/3] x86/HVM: honor r/o p2m types, in
particular during emulation", while making things better, didn't
actually fixing the original reported bug.

I personally wouldn't have phrased the sentence quite like that, but it
is a correct statement.

> Also Cc-ing Jürgen to be explicitly aware of the regression, albeit I
> assume he has noticed the report already anyway.

Sadly, I suspect it is too late and too complicated to fix for 4.12 to
fix at this point.

>
>> straddling emulated accesses in more cases) the behavior of write and
>> rmw instruction emulation changed (possibly unintentionally) so that it
>> might not re-enter hvmemul_do_io() on IOREQ completion which should be
>> done in order to avoid breaking IOREQ state machine. What we're seeing
>> instead is a domain crash here:
>>
>> static int hvmemul_do_io(
>>     bool_t is_mmio, paddr_t addr, unsigned long *reps, unsigned int
>> ...
>>     case STATE_IORESP_READY:
>>         vio->io_req.state = STATE_IOREQ_NONE;
>>         p = vio->io_req;
>>
>>         /* Verify the emulation request has been correctly re-issued */
>>         if ( (p.type != (is_mmio ? IOREQ_TYPE_COPY : IOREQ_TYPE_PIO)) ||
>>              (p.addr != addr) ||
>>              (p.size != size) ||
>>              (p.count > *reps) ||
>>              (p.dir != dir) ||
>>              (p.df != df) ||
>>              (p.data_is_ptr != data_is_addr) ||
>>              (data_is_addr && (p.data != data)) )
>>             domain_crash(currd);
>>
>> This is happening on processing of the next IOREQ after the one that
>> hasn't been completed properly due to p2mt being changed in IOREQ
>> handler by XenGT kernel module. So it hit HVMTRANS_okay case in
>> linear_write() helper on the way back and didn't re-enter hvmemul_do_io().
> Am I to take this to mean that the first time round we take the
> HVMTRANS_bad_gfn_to_mfn exit from __hvm_copy() due to finding
> p2m_ioreq_server, but in the course of processing the request the
> page's type gets changed and hence we don't take that same path
> the second time?

I believe so, yes.

> If so, my first reaction is to blame the kernel
> module: Machine state (of the VM) may not change while processing
> a write, other than to carry out the _direct_ effects of the write. I
> don't think a p2m type change is supposed to be occurring as a side
> effect.

This is an especially unhelpful point of view, (and unreasonable IMO),
as you pushed for this interface over the alternatives which were
proposed originally.

Responding to an emulation request necessarily involves making state
changes in the VM.  When the state change in question is around the
tracking of shadow pagetables, the change is non-negotiable as far as
the higher level functionality is concerned.

>> The bug could be mitigated by the following patch but since it's you who
>> introduced this helper you might have better ideas how to avoid the
>> problem in a clean way here.
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
>> @@ -1139,13 +1139,11 @@ static int linear_write(unsigned long addr,
>> unsigned int bytes, void *p_data,
>>      {
>>          unsigned int offset, part1;
>>
>> -    case HVMTRANS_okay:
>> -        return X86EMUL_OKAY;
>> -
>>      case HVMTRANS_bad_linear_to_gfn:
>>          x86_emul_pagefault(pfinfo.ec, pfinfo.linear, &hvmemul_ctxt->ctxt);
>>          return X86EMUL_EXCEPTION;
>>
>> +    case HVMTRANS_okay:
>>      case HVMTRANS_bad_gfn_to_mfn:
>>          offset = addr & ~PAGE_MASK;
>>          if ( offset + bytes <= PAGE_SIZE )
> This is (I'm inclined to say "of course") not an appropriate change in
> the general case: Getting back HVMTRANS_okay means the write
> was carried out, and hence it shouldn't be tried to be carried out a
> 2nd time.

I agree - this isn't a viable fix but it does help to pinpoint the problem.

> I take it that changing the kernel driver would at best be sub-optimal
> though, so a hypervisor-only fix would be better.

This problem isn't specific to p2m_ioreq_server.  A guest which balloons
in a frame which is currently the target of a pending MMIO emulation
will hit the same issue.

This is a general problem with the ioreq response state machine
handling.  My longterm plans for emulation changes would fix this, but
they definitely aren't a viable short term fix.

The only viable fix I see in the short term is to mark the ioreq
response as done before reentering the emulation model, so in the cases
that we do take a different path, a stale ioreq isn't left in place, but
I fully admit that I haven't spent too long thinking through the
implications of this, and whether it is possible in practice.

~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®.