[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: xen 4.15.5: msr_relaxed required for MSR 0x1a2
On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 10:56:30AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 17.11.2023 10:18, James Dingwall wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 04:32:47PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> On 16/11/2023 4:15 pm, James Dingwall wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Per the msr_relaxed documentation: > >>> > >>> "If using this option is necessary to fix an issue, please report a > >>> bug." > >>> > >>> After recently upgrading an environment from Xen 4.14.5 to Xen 4.15.5 we > >>> started experiencing a BSOD at boot with one of our Windows guests. We > >>> found > >>> that enabling `msr_relaxed = 1` in the guest configuration has resolved > >>> the > >>> problem. With a debug build of Xen and `hvm_debug=2048` on the command > >>> line > >>> the following messages were caught as the BSOD happened: > >>> > >>> (XEN) [HVM:11.0] <vmx_msr_read_intercept> ecx=0x1a2 > >>> (XEN) vmx.c:3298:d11v0 RDMSR 0x000001a2 unimplemented > >>> (XEN) d11v0 VIRIDIAN CRASH: 1e ffffffffc0000096 fffff80b8de81eb5 0 0 > >>> > >>> I found that MSR 0x1a2 is MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET and from that this patch > >>> series from last month: > >>> > >>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/list/?series=796550 > >>> > >>> Picking out just a small part of that fixes the problem for us. Although > >>> the > >>> the patch is against 4.15.5 I think it would be relevant to more recent > >>> releases too. > >> > >> Which version of Windows, and what hardware? > >> > >> The Viridian Crash isn't about the RDMSR itself - it's presumably > >> collateral damage shortly thereafter. > >> > >> Does filling in 0 for that MSR also resolve the issue? It's model > >> specific and we absolutely cannot pass it through from real hardware > >> like that. > >> > > > > Hi Andrew, > > > > Thanks for your response. The guest is running Windows 10 and the crash > > happens in a proprietary hardware driver. A little bit of knowledge as > > they say was enough to stop the crash but I don't understand the impact > > of what I've actually done... > > > > To rework the patch I'd need a bit of guidance, if I understand your > > suggestion I set the MSR to 0 with this change in emul-priv-op.c: > > For the purpose of the experiment suggested by Andrew ... > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c > > index ed97b1d6fcc..66f5e417df6 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/pv/emul-priv-op.c > > @@ -976,6 +976,10 @@ static int read_msr(unsigned int reg, uint64_t *val, > > *val = 0; > > return X86EMUL_OKAY; > > > > + case MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET: > > + *val = 0; > > + return X86EMUL_OKAY; > > + > > case MSR_P6_PERFCTR(0) ... MSR_P6_PERFCTR(7): > > case MSR_P6_EVNTSEL(0) ... MSR_P6_EVNTSEL(3): > > case MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0 ... MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR2: > > ... you wouldn't need this (affects PV domains only), and ... > > > and this in vmx.c: > > > > diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c > > index 54023a92587..bbf37b7f272 100644 > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c > > @@ -3259,6 +3259,11 @@ static int vmx_msr_read_intercept(unsigned int msr, > > uint64_t *msr_content) > > if ( !nvmx_msr_read_intercept(msr, msr_content) ) > > goto gp_fault; > > break; > > + > > + case MSR_TEMPERATURE_TARGET: > > + *msr_content = 0; > > + break; > > + > > case MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE: > > rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE, *msr_content); > > /* Debug Trace Store is not supported. */ > > ... indeed this ought to do. An eventual real patch may want to look > different, though. > Thanks Jan, based on the information I've reduced the patch to what seems the minimal necessary to workaround the BSOD. I assume simply not ending up at X86EMUL_EXCEPTION is the resolution regardless of what value is set. Regards, James Attachment:
msr_temperature_target-v2.patch
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |