Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: fix missed memory synchronization when patchhypercall

[Xiao Guangrong]

On 06/09/2013 06:19 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 06:01:45PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> On 06/09/2013 05:39 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 05:29:37PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2013 04:45 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static int emulator_fix_hypercall(struct x86_emulate_ctxt *ctxt)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = emul_to_vcpu(ctxt);
>>>>> +	return kvm_exec_with_stopped_vcpu(vcpu->kvm,
>>>>> +			emulator_fix_hypercall_cb, ctxt);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +
>>>>>  /*
>>>>>   * Check if userspace requested an interrupt window, and that the
>>>>>   * interrupt window is open.
>>>>> @@ -5761,6 +5769,10 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>  			kvm_deliver_pmi(vcpu);
>>>>>  		if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_SCAN_IOAPIC, vcpu))
>>>>>  			vcpu_scan_ioapic(vcpu);
>>>>> +		if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_STOP_VCPU, vcpu)){
>>>>> +			mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
>>>>> +			mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
>>>>
>>>> We should execute a serializing instruction here?
>>>>
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>>>>> @@ -222,6 +222,18 @@ void kvm_make_scan_ioapic_request(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>  	make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_SCAN_IOAPIC);
>>>>>  }
>>>>>
>>>>> +int kvm_exec_with_stopped_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, int (*cb)(void *), void *data)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +	int r;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>>>>> +	make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_STOP_VCPU);
>>>>> +	r = cb(data);
>>>>
>>>> And here?
>>> Since the serialisation instruction the SDM suggest to use is CPUID I
>>> think the point here is to flush CPU pipeline. Since all vcpus are out
>>> of a guest mode I think out of order execution of modified instruction
>>> is no an issue here.
>>
>> I checked the SDM that it did not said VMLAUNCH/VMRESUME are the
>> serializing instructions both in VM-Entry description and Instruction
>> reference, instead it said the VMX related serializing instructions are:
>> INVEPT, INVVPID.
>>
>> So, i guess the explicit serializing instruction is needed here.
>>
> Again the question is what for? SDM says:
> 
>   The Intel 64 and IA-32 architectures define several serializing
>   instructions. These instructions force the processor to complete all
>   modifications to flags, registers, and memory by previous instructions
>   and to drain all buffered writes to memory before the next instruction
>   is fetched and executed.
> 
> So flags and registers modifications on a host are obviously irrelevant for a guest.

Okay. Hmm... but what can guarantee that "drain all buffered writes to memory"?

> And for memory ordering we have smp_mb() on a guest entry.

If i understand the SDM correctly, memory-ordering instructions can not drain
instruction buffer, it only drains "data memory subsystem":

"The following instructions are memory-ordering instructions, not serializing instruc-
tions. These drain the data memory subsystem. They do not serialize the instruction
execution stream:"

No?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/