[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH v2] x86/traps: Re-enable interrupts after reading cr2 in the #PF handler
On Wed Sep 25, 2024 at 7:35 AM BST, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 24.09.2024 20:36, Andrew Cooper wrote: > > On 23/09/2024 2:03 pm, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 23.09.2024 12:14, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > >>> On Fri Sep 20, 2024 at 3:12 PM BST, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 02:05:54PM +0100, Alejandro Vallejo wrote: > >>>>> Moves sti directly after the cr2 read and immediately after the #PF > >>>>> handler. > >>>> I think you need to add some context about why this is needed, iow: > >>>> avoid corrupting %cr2 if a nested 3PF happens. > >>> I can send a v3 with: > >>> > >>> ``` > >>> Hitting a page fault clobbers %cr2, so if a page fault is handled while > >>> handling a previous page fault then %cr2 will hold the address of the > >>> latter > >>> fault rather than the former. This patch makes the page fault path delay > >>> re-enabling IRQs until %cr2 has been read in order to ensure it stays > >>> consistent. > >> And under what conditions would we experience #PF while already processing > >> an earlier #PF? If an interrupt kicks in, that's not supposed to by raising > >> any #PF itself. Which isn't to say that the change isn't worthwhile to > >> make, > >> but it would be nice if it was explicit whether there are active issues, or > >> whether this is merely to be on the safe side going forward. > > > > My understanding is that this came from code inspection, not an active > > issue. > > > > The same is true for %dr6 and #DB, and MSR_XFD_ERR and #NM. > > > > I think we can safely agree to veto the use of AMX in the #NM handler, > > and IST exceptions don't re-enable interrupts[1], so #PF is the only > > problem case. > > > > Debug keys happen off the back of plain IRQs, and we can get #PF when > > interrogating guest stacks. > > Hmm, yes, this looks like a case that is actively being fixed here. Wants > mentioning, likely wants a respective Fixes: tag, and then also wants > backporting. Sure. > > > Also, I'm far from certain we're safe to > > spurious #PF's from updating Xen mappings, so I think there are a bunch > > of risky corner cases that we might be exposed to. > > Spurious #PF are possible, but __page_fault_type() explicitly excludes > the in_irq() case. > > Jan Cheers, Alejandro
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |