On 26.05.2022 13:11, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Under certain conditions guests can get the CPU stuck in an unbounded
> loop without the possibility of an interrupt window to occur on
> instruction boundary. This was the case with the scenarios described
> in XSA-156.
>
> Make use of the Notify VM Exit mechanism, that will trigger a VM Exit
> if no interrupt window occurs for a specified amount of time. Note
> that using the Notify VM Exit avoids having to trap #AC and #DB
> exceptions, as Xen is guaranteed to get a VM Exit even if the guest
> puts the CPU in a loop without an interrupt window, as such disable
> the intercepts if the feature is available and enabled.
>
> Setting the notify VM exit window to 0 is safe because there's a
> threshold added by the hardware in order to have a sane window value.
>
> Suggested-by: Andrew Cooper <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Properly update debug state when using notify VM exit.
> - Reword commit message.
> ---
> This change enables the notify VM exit by default, KVM however doesn't
> seem to enable it by default, and there's the following note in the
> commit message:
>
> "- There's a possibility, however small, that a notify VM exit happens
> with VM_CONTEXT_INVALID set in exit qualification. In this case, the
> vcpu can no longer run. To avoid killing a well-behaved guest, set
> notify window as -1 to disable this feature by default."
>
> It's not obviously clear to me whether the comment was meant to be:
> "There's a possibility, however small, that a notify VM exit _wrongly_
> happens with VM_CONTEXT_INVALID".
>
> It's also not clear whether such wrong hardware behavior only affects
> a specific set of hardware, in a way that we could avoid enabling
> notify VM exit there.
>
> There's a discussion in one of the Linux patches that 128K might be
> the safer value in order to prevent false positives, but I have no
> formal confirmation about this. Maybe our Intel maintainers can
> provide some more feedback on a suitable notify VM exit window
> value.
This certainly wants sorting one way or another before I, for one,
would consider giving an R-b here.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmcs.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ integer_param("ple_gap", ple_gap);
> static unsigned int __read_mostly ple_window = 4096;
> integer_param("ple_window", ple_window);
>
> +static unsigned int __ro_after_init vm_notify_window;
> +integer_param("vm-notify-window", vm_notify_window);
Could even be a runtime param, I guess. Albeit I realize this would
complicate things further down.
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -1419,10 +1419,19 @@ static void cf_check vmx_update_host_cr3(struct vcpu
> *v)
>
> void vmx_update_debug_state(struct vcpu *v)
> {
> + unsigned int mask = 1u << TRAP_int3;
> +
> + if ( !cpu_has_monitor_trap_flag && cpu_has_vmx_notify_vm_exiting )
I'm puzzled by the lack of symmetry between this and ...
> + /*
> + * Only allow toggling TRAP_debug if notify VM exit is enabled, as
> + * unconditionally setting TRAP_debug is part of the XSA-156 fix.
> + */
> + mask |= 1u << TRAP_debug;
> +
> if ( v->arch.hvm.debug_state_latch )
> - v->arch.hvm.vmx.exception_bitmap |= 1U << TRAP_int3;
> + v->arch.hvm.vmx.exception_bitmap |= mask;
> else
> - v->arch.hvm.vmx.exception_bitmap &= ~(1U << TRAP_int3);
> + v->arch.hvm.vmx.exception_bitmap &= ~mask;
>
> vmx_vmcs_enter(v);
> vmx_update_exception_bitmap(v);
> @@ -4155,6 +4164,9 @@ void vmx_vmexit_handler(struct cpu_user_regs *regs)
> switch ( vector )
> {
> case TRAP_debug:
> + if ( cpu_has_monitor_trap_flag && cpu_has_vmx_notify_vm_exiting )
> + goto exit_and_crash;
... this condition. Shouldn't one be the inverse of the other (and
then it's the one down here which wants adjusting)?
> @@ -126,5 +126,6 @@ PERFCOUNTER(realmode_exits, "vmexits from realmode")
> PERFCOUNTER(pauseloop_exits, "vmexits from Pause-Loop Detection")
>
> PERFCOUNTER(buslock, "Bus Locks Detected")
> +PERFCOUNTER(vmnotify_crash, "domains crashed by Notify VM Exit")
I think the text is not entirely correct and would want to be
"domain crashes by ...". Multiple vCPU-s of a single domain can
experience this in parallel (granted this would require "good"
timing).
Jan
