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

Re: [PATCH] x86/tsx: Cope with RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT vs RTM mismatch


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:22:40 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; 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: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki <marmarek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Apr 2024 13:22:50 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 04/04/2024 1:45 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 04.04.2024 12:41, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> @@ -9,6 +10,7 @@
>>   *  -1 => Default, altered to 0/1 (if unspecified) by:
>>   *                 - TAA heuristics/settings for speculative safety
>>   *                 - "TSX vs PCR3" select for TSX memory ordering safety
>> + *  -2 => Implicit tsx=0 (from RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT vs RTM mismatch)
>>   *  -3 => Implicit tsx=1 (feed-through from spec-ctrl=0)
>>   *
>>   * This is arranged such that the bottom bit encodes whether TSX is actually
>> @@ -114,11 +116,50 @@ void tsx_init(void)
>>  
>>          if ( cpu_has_tsx_force_abort )
>>          {
>> +            uint64_t val;
>> +
>>              /*
>> -             * On an early TSX-enable Skylake part subject to the memory
>> +             * On an early TSX-enabled Skylake part subject to the memory
>>               * ordering erratum, with at least the March 2019 microcode.
>>               */
>>  
>> +            rdmsrl(MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT, val);
>> +
>> +            /*
>> +             * At the time of writing (April 2024), it was discovered that
>> +             * some parts (e.g. CoffeeLake 8th Gen, 06-9e-0a, ucode 0xf6)
>> +             * advertise RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT, but XBEGIN instructions #UD.  
>> Other
>> +             * similar parts (e.g. KabyLake Xeon-E3, 06-9e-09, ucode 0xf8)
>> +             * operate as expected.
>> +             *
>> +             * In this case:
>> +             *  - RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT and MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT are enumerated.
>> +             *  - XBEGIN instructions genuinely #UD.
>> +             *  - MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT is write-discard and fails to hold its
>> +             *    value.
>> +             *  - HLE and RTM are not enumerated, despite
>> +             *    MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT.TSX_CPUID_CLEAR being clear.
> Of these 4 items you use the first and last here. It took me some time to
> figure that the middle two are (aiui) only informational, and that you
> assume that first and last together are sufficient to uniquely identify
> the problematic parts. Separating the two groups a little might be helpful.

All 4 points are relevant to the if() expression.

>
> For the write-discard property, how was that determined? Does it affect all
> writable bits?

Marek kindly ran a debugging patch for me last night to try and figure
out what was going on.

Currently, Xen tries to set 0x2 (TSX_CPUID_CLEAR) and debugging showed
it being read back as 0.

I didn't check anything else, but I have a strong suspicion that I know
exactly what's going wrong here.

The property the if() condition is mainly looking for is !RTM &&
!(MSR_TFA.CPUID_CLEAR) because that's an illegal state in a

>
>> +             * Spot this case, and treat it as if no TSX is available at 
>> all.
>> +             * This will prevent Xen from thinking it's safe to offer 
>> HLE/RTM
>> +             * to VMs.
>> +             */
>> +            if ( val == 0 && cpu_has_rtm_always_abort && !cpu_has_rtm )
>> +            {
>> +                printk(XENLOG_ERR
>> +                       "FIRMWARE BUG: CPU %02x-%02x-%02x, ucode 0x%08x: 
>> RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT vs RTM mismatch\n",
> This isn't really firmware, is it? At least I wouldn't call microcode
> (assuming that's where the bad behavior is rooted) firmware.

Microcode is absolutely part of the system firmware.

>
>> +                       boot_cpu_data.x86, boot_cpu_data.x86_model,
>> +                       boot_cpu_data.x86_mask, this_cpu(cpu_sig).rev);
>> +
>> +                setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT);
> Instead of the "goto" below, wouldn't it be better to also force
> has_rtm_always_abort to false along with this, thus skipping the
> setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT) further down?

I considered that and dismissed it.  It is more fragile, in a case were
really do want to treat this case as if TSX genuinely doesn't exist.

>  That would
> leave things a little less awkward flow-wise, imo. The one thing not
> becoming clear from the commentary above is whether cpu_has_tsx_ctrl might
> be true, and hence RTM/HLE still becoming (wrongly) set, if done that way.

MSR_TSX_CTRL and MSR_TSX_FORCE_ABORT exist on disjoint sets of CPUs. 
(The split being MDS_NO).

This is discussed explicitly lower down in the function, beyond the if (
once ) block.

~Andrew



 


Rackspace

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