lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86: Remove WARN_ON in kvm_arch_check_processor_compat
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 07:48:39PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 11, 2022, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >> > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00 AM
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, Chao Gao wrote:
> >> > > kvm_arch_check_processor_compat() needn't be called with interrupt
> >> > > disabled, as it only reads some CRs/MSRs which won't be clobbered
> >> > > by interrupt handlers or softirq.
> >> > >
> >> > > What really needed is disabling preemption. No additional check is
> >> > > added because if CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT is enabled, smp_processor_id()
> >> > > (right above the WARN_ON()) can help to detect any violation.
> >> >
> >> > Hrm, IIRC, the assertion that IRQs are disabled was more about detecting
> >> > improper usage with respect to KVM doing hardware enabling than it was
> >> > about ensuring the current task isn't migrated. E.g. as exhibited by patch
> >> > 06, extra protections (disabling of hotplug in that case) are needed if
> >> > this helper is called outside of the core KVM hardware enabling flow since
> >> > hardware_enable_all() does its thing via SMP function call.
> >>
> >> Looks the WARN_ON() was added by you. 😊
> >
> >Yeah, past me owes current me a beer.
> >
> >> commit f1cdecf5807b1a91829a2dc4f254bfe6bafd4776
> >> Author: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> >> Date: Tue Dec 10 14:44:14 2019 -0800
> >>
> >> KVM: x86: Ensure all logical CPUs have consistent reserved cr4 bits
> >>
> >> Check the current CPU's reserved cr4 bits against the mask calculated
> >> for the boot CPU to ensure consistent behavior across all CPUs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> But it's unclear to me how this WARN_ON() is related to what the commit
> >> msg tries to explain.
> >
> >Ya, the changelog and lack of a comment is awful.
> >
> >> When I read this code it's more like a sanity check on the assumption that it
> >> is currently called in SMP function call which runs the said function with
> >> interrupt disabled.
> >
> >Yes, and as above, that assertion was more about the helper not really being safe
> >for general usage as opposed to wanting to detect use from preemptible context.
> >If we end up keeping the WARN_ON, I'll happily write a comment explaining the
> >point of the assertion.
>
> OK. I will do following changes to keep the WARN_ON():
> 1. drop this patch
> 2. disable interrupt before the call site in patch 6.

No, we shouldn't sully other code just to keep this WARN. Again, the point of
the WARN is/was to highlight that any use outside of the hardware enabling path
is suspect. That's why I asked if there was a way this code could identify that
the CPU in question is being hotplugged, i.e. to convey that the helper is safe
to use only during hardware enabling _or_ hotplug. If that's not feasible,
replacing the WARN with a scary comment is better than disabling IRQs.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-12 18:36    [W:0.063 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site