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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/vpmu_intel: Fix hypervisor crash by masking PC bit in MSR_P6_EVNTSEL

>>> On 03.05.17 at 19:11, <mohit.gambhir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 04/28/2017 02:52 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> From: Tian, Kevin
>>> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 2:43 PM
>>>> From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:18 PM
>>>> On 04/27/2017 11:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27.04.17 at 16:57, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/27/2017 03:32 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 26.04.17 at 20:50, <mohit.gambhir@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/26/2017 02:19 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 26/04/17 19:11, Mohit Gambhir wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Setting Pin Control (PC) bit (19) in MSR_P6_EVNTSEL results in a
>>>> General
>>>>>>>>>> Protection Fault and thus results in a hypervisor crash. This patch
>>>> fixes
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> crash by masking PC bit and returning an error in case any guest
>>> tries
>>>> to
>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>> to it.
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mohit Gambhir <mohit.gambhir@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> Out of interest, which hardware has this been observed on?
>>>>>>>> I have tested this on two Intel Broadwell machines.
>>>>>>> Since by now all we have are indications that this is an erratum,
>>>>>>> this information belongs into the commit message. As it is written
>>>>>>> now, it means the bit can't be set on any hardware. If there are
>>>>>>> reasons beyond this erratum to uniformly disallow the bit to be
>>>>>>> set by guests, these should be named here too. After all the
>>>>>>> way you do the change, you now refuse values with the bit set
>>>>>>> everywhere.
>>>>>> I don't think this is specific to Broadwell. I tried this on a Haswell
>>>>>> (model 60) and got a #GPF as well.
>>>>>> If I understand what this bit does, it is pretty pointless in a guest.
>>>>>> It is only useful in some sort of embedded setup, where something is
>>>>>> hooked up to a particular pin on the board. So perhaps this is not an
>>>>>> erratum but rather a not fully documented feature, where if nothing is
>>>>>> connected to that pin this bit should not be set.
>>>>>> Or maybe it is documented but I can't find anything on that.
>>>>> Kevin, Jun?
>>> I asked internally but didn't get a clarification yet.
>>>>>> Either way, we should mask this bit.
>>>>> Sure, but: Refuse attempts to set it, or silently ignore such?
>>>> I think the former, especially if what I surmised above is correct ---
>>>> the user shouldn't try to set it.
>>> I'm with the former too.
>> btw regardless of clarification which I'm trying to get, I think we do
>> need disallow such guest operation going to physical MSR. It's not
>> good to have guest impact physical PMU interrupt behavior. Even
>> when we want to support guest PC operation in the future, it needs
>> be emulated as the comment given in KVM side. If others also
>> agree with this assumption, we could check-in this patch w/o
>> mentioning any possible erratum...
> Do we have a consensus on this? Should we push through with this patch 
> or any other
> changes/clarifications are required?

Iirc the main thing left at this point is to make the commit message
properly express why the change is being made.


Xen-devel mailing list



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