lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: VMX: Extend VMX's #AC handding
From
Date
On 2/1/2020 5:33 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 1:04 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 12:57:51PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 12:18 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is essentially what I proposed a while back. KVM would allow enabling
>>>> split-lock #AC in the guest if and only if SMT is disabled or the enable bit
>>>> is per-thread, *or* the host is in "warn" mode (can live with split-lock #AC
>>>> being randomly disabled/enabled) and userspace has communicated to KVM that
>>>> it is pinning vCPUs.
>>>
>>> How about covering the actual sensible case: host is set to fatal? In this
>>> mode, the guest gets split lock detection whether it wants it or not. How do
>>> we communicate this to the guest?
>>
>> KVM doesn't advertise split-lock #AC to the guest and returns -EFAULT to the
>> userspace VMM if the guest triggers a split-lock #AC.
>>
>> Effectively the same behavior as any other userspace process, just that KVM
>> explicitly returns -EFAULT instead of the process getting a SIGBUS.
>
>
> Which helps how if the guest is actually SLD-aware?
>
> I suppose we could make the argument that, if an SLD-aware guest gets #AC at CPL0, it’s a bug, but it still seems rather nicer to forward the #AC to the guest instead of summarily killing it.

If KVM does advertise split-lock detection to the guest, then kvm/host
can know whether a guest is SLD-aware by checking guest's
MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT bit.

- If guest's MSR_TEST_CTRL.SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT is set, it indicates
guest is SLD-aware so KVM forwards #AC to guest.

- If not set. It may be a old guest or a malicious guest or a guest
without SLD support, and we cannot figure it out. So we have to kill the
guest when host is SLD-fatal, and let guest survive when SLD-WARN for
old sane buggy guest.

In a word, all the above is on the condition that KVM advertise
split-lock detection to guest. But this patch doesn't do this. Maybe I
should add that part in v2.

> ISTM, on an SLD-fatal host with an SLD-aware guest, the host should tell the guest “hey, you may not do split locks — SLD is forced on” and the guest should somehow acknowledge it so that it sees the architectural behavior instead of something we made up. Hence my suggestion.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-01 17:58    [W:0.065 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site