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

Re: [PATCH v2] x86/hvm: vlapic: fix RO bits emulation in LVTx regs


  • To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2025 17:35:25 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.garciavallejo@xxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 07 Oct 2025 15:35:27 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 03.10.2025 16:04, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> 
> 
> On 01.10.25 18:18, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>> On Tue Sep 30, 2025 at 9:05 PM CEST, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The LAPIC LVTx registers have two RO bits:
>>> - all: Delivery Status (DS) bit 12
>>> - LINT0/LINT1: Remote IRR Flag (RIR) bit 14.
>>>
>>> The Delivery Status (DS) is not emulated by Xen - there is no IRQ msg bus,
>>> and the IRQ is:
>>> - or accepted at destination and appears as pending
>>>    (vLAPIC Interrupt Request Register (IRR))
>>> - or get rejected immediately.
>>>
>>> The Remote IRR Flag (RIR) behavior emulation is not implemented for
>>> LINT0/LINT1 in Xen for now.
>>>
>>> The current vLAPIC implementations allows guest to write to these RO bits.
>>>
>>> The vLAPIC LVTx registers write happens in vlapic_reg_write() which expect
>>> to implement "Write ignore" access type for RO bits by applying masks from
>>> vlapic_lvt_mask[], but vlapic_lvt_mask[] contains incorrect masks which
>>> allows writing to RO fields.
>>>
>>> Hence it is definitely wrong to allow guest to write to LVTx regs RO bits,
>>> fix it by fixing LVTx registers masks in vlapic_lvt_mask[].
>>>
>>> In case of WRMSR (guest_wrmsr_x2apic()) access to LVTx registers, the SDM
>>> clearly defines access type for "Reserved" bits as RsvdZ (Non-zero writes
>>> to reserved bits should cause #GP exception), but contains no statements
>>> for RO bits except that they are not "Reserved". So, guest_wrmsr_x2apic()
>>> now uses different masks (than vlapic_reg_write()) for checking LVTx
>>> registers values for "Reserved" bit settings, which include RO bits and
>>> do not cause #GP exception.
>>>
>>> Fixes: d1bd157fbc9b ("Big merge the HVM full-virtualisation abstractions.")
>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> - masks fixed in vlapic_lvt_mask[]
>>> - commit msg reworded
>>>
>>> v1: 
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/xen-devel/patch/20250925195558.519568-1-grygorii_strashko@xxxxxxxx/
>>>   xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c | 14 ++++++++------
>>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
>>> index 79697487ba90..2ecba8163f48 100644
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vlapic.c
>>> @@ -44,15 +44,17 @@
>>>   static const unsigned int vlapic_lvt_mask[VLAPIC_LVT_NUM] =
>>>   {
>>>        /* LVTT */
>>> -     LVT_MASK | APIC_TIMER_MODE_MASK,
>>> +     (LVT_MASK | APIC_TIMER_MODE_MASK) & ~APIC_SEND_PENDING,
>>>        /* LVTTHMR */
>>> -     LVT_MASK | APIC_DM_MASK,
>>> +     (LVT_MASK | APIC_DM_MASK) & ~APIC_SEND_PENDING,
>>>        /* LVTPC */
>>> -     LVT_MASK | APIC_DM_MASK,
>>> -     /* LVT0-1 */
>>> -     LINT_MASK, LINT_MASK,
>>> +     (LVT_MASK | APIC_DM_MASK) & ~APIC_SEND_PENDING,
>>> +     /* LVT0 */
>>> +     LINT_MASK & ~(APIC_LVT_REMOTE_IRR | APIC_SEND_PENDING),
>>> +     /* LVT1 */
>>> +     LINT_MASK & ~(APIC_LVT_REMOTE_IRR | APIC_SEND_PENDING),
>>>        /* LVTERR */
>>> -     LVT_MASK
>>> +     LVT_MASK & ~APIC_SEND_PENDING,
>>>   };
>>
>> This is a bit messy. Why not have 2 masks? One for rsvdZ bits, and one
>> for RO?
>>
>> That ought to simplify the logic in both the MSR and MMIO cases.
>>
>> MMIO would do RAZ/WI on the OR of both, while the MSR interface would gate
>> #GP(0) on the mask for rsvd bits only and ensure all RO bits are preserved on
>> writes.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> I've been thinking about the same and It can be done, np.
> I always trying to make "fix" with as small diff as possible
> considering back-porting.
> 
> How about "follow up" patch if there is an agreement to proceed this way on 
> the Top level?

Doing it in two steps would be okay with me (I expected it to go that way
anyway), but then it would still be nice to limit churn some. Specifically,
taking LINT_MASK as example, can't we do

#define LINT_RO_MASK (LVT_RO_MASK | APIC_LVT_REMOTE_IRR)

#define LINT_WR_MASK \
    (LVT_WR_MASK | APIC_DM_MASK | APIC_INPUT_POLARITY | \
    APIC_LVT_LEVEL_TRIGGER)

#define LINT_MASK (LINT_WR_MASK | LINT_RO_MASK)

or some such, and then use *_WR_MASK in the table initializer?

Jan



 


Rackspace

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