Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 2:07 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 15/04/21 02:59, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > The next call to inject_pending_event() will reach here AT FIRST with
> > vcpu->arch.exception.injected==false and vcpu->arch.exception.pending==false
> >
> >> ... if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> >> if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
> >> static_call(kvm_x86_set_nmi)(vcpu);
> >> can_inject = false;
> >> } else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
> >> static_call(kvm_x86_set_irq)(vcpu);
> >> can_inject = false;
> >
> > And comes here and vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is true for there is
> > an interrupt queued by KVM_INTERRUPT for pure user irqchip. It then does
> > the injection of the interrupt without checking the EFLAGS.IF.
>
> Ok, understood now. Yeah, that could be a problem for userspace irqchip
> so we should switch it to use pending_external_vector instead. Are you
> going to write the patch or should I?
>
I wish you do it. I haven't figured out how to write a clean test for
it and confirm it in upstream. But I will backport your patch and test it.
My fix is changing the behavior back to before 664f8e26b00c7 where
arch.exception.pending=true would prevent ready_for_interrupt_injection
to be non-zero. So that KVM_INTERRUPT maintains the original behavior
that it can immediately inject IRQ into guests. (Userspace may regret
an unearthly injected IRQ for it has no right to revise the IRQ or cancel
it.) But your fix will unify the behaviors of all kinds of irqchips.
Thanks
Lai
> Thanks!
>
> Paolo
>
> > My question is that what stops the next call to inject_pending_event()
> > to reach here when KVM_INTERRUPT is called with exepction pending.
>
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On 15/04/21 02:59, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
The next call to inject_pending_event() will reach here AT FIRST with
vcpu->arch.exception.injected==false and vcpu->arch.exception.pending==false
... if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
static_call(kvm_x86_set_nmi)(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
} else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
static_call(kvm_x86_set_irq)(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
And comes here and vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is true for there is
an interrupt queued by KVM_INTERRUPT for pure user irqchip. It then does
the injection of the interrupt without checking the EFLAGS.IF.
Ok, understood now. Yeah, that could be a problem for userspace irqchip
so we should switch it to use pending_external_vector instead. Are you
going to write the patch or should I?
Thanks!
Paolo
My question is that what stops the next call to inject_pending_event()
to reach here when KVM_INTERRUPT is called with exepction pending.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:58 AM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 14/04/21 04:28, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13/04/21 13:03, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> >>> This patch claims that it has a place to
> >>> stash the IRQ when EFLAGS.IF=0, but inject_pending_event() seams to ignore
> >>> EFLAGS.IF and queues the IRQ to the guest directly in the first branch
> >>> of using "kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu)".
> >>
> >> This is only true for pure-userspace irqchip. For split-irqchip, in
> >> which case the "place to stash" the interrupt is
> >> vcpu->arch.pending_external_vector.
> >>
> >> For pure-userspace irqchip, KVM_INTERRUPT only cares about being able to
> >> stash the interrupt in vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected. It is indeed
> >> wrong for userspace to call KVM_INTERRUPT if the vCPU is not ready for
> >> interrupt injection, but KVM_INTERRUPT does not return an error.
> >
> > Thanks for the reply.
> >
> > May I ask what is the correct/practical way of using KVM_INTERRUPT ABI
> > for pure-userspace irqchip.
> >
> > gVisor is indeed a pure-userspace irqchip, it will call KVM_INTERRUPT
> > when kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 (along with other conditions
> > unrelated to our discussion).
> >
> > https://github.com/google/gvisor/blob/a9441aea2780da8c93da1c73da860219f98438de/pkg/sentry/platform/kvm/bluepill_amd64_unsafe.go#L105
> >
> > if kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 when expection pending or
> > EFLAGS.IF=0, it would be unexpected for gVisor.
>
> Not with EFLAGS.IF=0. For pending exception, there is code to handle it
> in inject_pending_event:
>
Thanks for the reply.
(I rearranged your summarization here)
> so what happens is:
>
> - the interrupt will not be injected before the exception
>
> - KVM will schedule an immediate vmexit to inject the interrupt as well
>
> - if (as is likely) the exception has turned off interrupts, the next
> call to inject_pending_event will reach
> static_call(kvm_x86_enable_irq_window) and the interrupt will only be
> injected when IF becomes 1 again.
The next call to inject_pending_event() will reach here AT FIRST with
vcpu->arch.exception.injected==false and vcpu->arch.exception.pending==false
> ... if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
> static_call(kvm_x86_set_nmi)(vcpu);
> can_inject = false;
> } else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
> static_call(kvm_x86_set_irq)(vcpu);
> can_inject = false;
And comes here and vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is true for there is
an interrupt queued by KVM_INTERRUPT for pure user irqchip. It then does
the injection of the interrupt without checking the EFLAGS.IF.
My question is that what stops the next call to inject_pending_event()
to reach here when KVM_INTERRUPT is called with exepction pending.
Or what makes kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection be zero when
exception pending to disallow userspace to call KVM_INTERRUPT.
> }
> }
> ...
> if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> ...
> can_inject = false;
> }
> // this is vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected for userspace LAPIC
> if (kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)) {
> r = can_inject ?
> static_call(kvm_x86_interrupt_allowed)(vcpu, true) : -EBUSY;
> if (r < 0)
> goto busy;
> ...
> }
>
>
> Paolo
>
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On 14/04/21 04:28, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 13/04/21 13:03, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
This patch claims that it has a place to
stash the IRQ when EFLAGS.IF=0, but inject_pending_event() seams to ignore
EFLAGS.IF and queues the IRQ to the guest directly in the first branch
of using "kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu)".
This is only true for pure-userspace irqchip. For split-irqchip, in
which case the "place to stash" the interrupt is
vcpu->arch.pending_external_vector.
For pure-userspace irqchip, KVM_INTERRUPT only cares about being able to
stash the interrupt in vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected. It is indeed
wrong for userspace to call KVM_INTERRUPT if the vCPU is not ready for
interrupt injection, but KVM_INTERRUPT does not return an error.
Thanks for the reply.
May I ask what is the correct/practical way of using KVM_INTERRUPT ABI
for pure-userspace irqchip.
gVisor is indeed a pure-userspace irqchip, it will call KVM_INTERRUPT
when kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 (along with other conditions
unrelated to our discussion).
https://github.com/google/gvisor/blob/a9441aea2780da8c93da1c73da860219f98438de/pkg/sentry/platform/kvm/bluepill_amd64_unsafe.go#L105
if kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 when expection pending or
EFLAGS.IF=0, it would be unexpected for gVisor.
Not with EFLAGS.IF=0. For pending exception, there is code to handle it
in inject_pending_event:
... if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
static_call(kvm_x86_set_nmi)(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
} else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
static_call(kvm_x86_set_irq)(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
}
}
...
if (vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
...
can_inject = false;
}
// this is vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected for userspace LAPIC
if (kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(vcpu)) {
r = can_inject ?
static_call(kvm_x86_interrupt_allowed)(vcpu, true) : -EBUSY;
if (r < 0)
goto busy;
...
}
so what happens is:
- the interrupt will not be injected before the exception
- KVM will schedule an immediate vmexit to inject the interrupt as well
- if (as is likely) the exception has turned off interrupts, the next
call to inject_pending_event will reach
static_call(kvm_x86_enable_irq_window) and the interrupt will only be
injected when IF becomes 1 again.
Paolo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 13/04/21 13:03, Lai Jiangshan wrote: > > This patch claims that it has a place to > > stash the IRQ when EFLAGS.IF=0, but inject_pending_event() seams to ignore > > EFLAGS.IF and queues the IRQ to the guest directly in the first branch > > of using "kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu)". > > This is only true for pure-userspace irqchip. For split-irqchip, in > which case the "place to stash" the interrupt is > vcpu->arch.pending_external_vector. > > For pure-userspace irqchip, KVM_INTERRUPT only cares about being able to > stash the interrupt in vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected. It is indeed > wrong for userspace to call KVM_INTERRUPT if the vCPU is not ready for > interrupt injection, but KVM_INTERRUPT does not return an error. Thanks for the reply. May I ask what is the correct/practical way of using KVM_INTERRUPT ABI for pure-userspace irqchip. gVisor is indeed a pure-userspace irqchip, it will call KVM_INTERRUPT when kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 (along with other conditions unrelated to our discussion). https://github.com/google/gvisor/blob/a9441aea2780da8c93da1c73da860219f98438de/pkg/sentry/platform/kvm/bluepill_amd64_unsafe.go#L105 if kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 when expection pending or EFLAGS.IF=0, it would be unexpected for gVisor. Thanks Lai > > Ignoring the fact that this would be incorrect use of the API, are you > saying that the incorrect injection was not possible before this patch? > > Paolo >
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On 13/04/21 13:03, Lai Jiangshan wrote: This patch claims that it has a place to stash the IRQ when EFLAGS.IF=0, but inject_pending_event() seams to ignore EFLAGS.IF and queues the IRQ to the guest directly in the first branch of using "kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu)". This is only true for pure-userspace irqchip. For split-irqchip, in which case the "place to stash" the interrupt is vcpu->arch.pending_external_vector. For pure-userspace irqchip, KVM_INTERRUPT only cares about being able to stash the interrupt in vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected. It is indeed wrong for userspace to call KVM_INTERRUPT if the vCPU is not ready for interrupt injection, but KVM_INTERRUPT does not return an error. Ignoring the fact that this would be incorrect use of the API, are you saying that the incorrect injection was not possible before this patch? Paolo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On 12/04/21 23:43, Sean Christopherson wrote: where kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed() checks EFLAGS.IF (and an edge case related to nested virtualization). KVM also captures EFLAGS.IF in vcpu->run->if_flag. For whatever reason, QEMU checks both vcpu->run flags before injecting an IRQ, maybe to handle a case where QEMU itself clears EFLAGS.IF? It's mostly obsolete code (that will be deprecated in the next version and removed in about a year) so I wouldn't read much into it. if_flag itself is obsolete; it is not provided by SEV-ES, and a useless subset of ready_for_interrupt_injection. Paolo
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:43 AM Sean Christopherson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2021, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:26 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >
> > > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr and kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection are
> > > a hodge-podge of conditions, hacked together to get something that
> > > more or less works. But what is actually needed is much simpler;
> > > in both cases the fundamental question is, do we have a place to stash
> > > an interrupt if userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT?
> > >
> > > In userspace irqchip mode, that is !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected.
> > > Currently kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) covers it, but it is
> > > unnecessarily restrictive.
> > >
> > > In split irqchip mode it's a bit more complicated, we need to check
> > > kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu) (the IRQ window exit is basically an INTACK
> > > cycle and thus requires ExtINTs not to be masked) as well as
> > > !pending_userspace_extint(vcpu). However, there is no need to
> > > check kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu), since split irqchip keeps
> > > pending ExtINT state separate from event injection state, and checking
> > > kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) is wrong too since ExtINT has higher
> > > priority than APIC interrupts. In fact the latter fixes a bug:
> > > when userspace requests an IRQ window vmexit, an interrupt in the
> > > local APIC can cause kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() to be true and thus
> > > kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection() to return false. When this
> > > happens, vcpu_run does not exit to userspace but the interrupt window
> > > vmexits keep occurring. The VM loops without any hope of making progress.
> > >
> > > Once we try to fix these with something like
> > >
> > > return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> > > -!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) &&
> > > -!kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) &&
> > > -kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> > > +(!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu)
> > > + ? !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected
> > > + : (kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu)
> > > +&& !pending_userspace_extint(v)));
> > >
> > > we realize two things. First, thanks to the previous patch the complex
> > > conditional can reuse !kvm_cpu_has_extint(vcpu). Second, the interrupt
> > > window request in vcpu_enter_guest()
> > >
> > > bool req_int_win =
> > > dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
> > > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> > >
> > > should be kept in sync with kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
> > > it is unnecessary to ask the processor for an interrupt window
> > > if we would not be able to return to userspace. Therefore, the
> > > complex conditional is really the correct implementation of
> > > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu). It all makes sense:
> > >
> > > - we can accept an interrupt from userspace if there is a place
> > > to stash it (and, for irqchip split, ExtINTs are not masked).
> > > Interrupts from userspace _can_ be accepted even if right now
> > > EFLAGS.IF=0.
> >
> > Hello, Paolo
> >
> > If userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT, vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is
> > set immediately, and in inject_pending_event(), we have
> >
> > else if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> > if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
> > kvm_x86_ops.set_nmi(vcpu);
> > can_inject = false;
> > } else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
> > kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu);
> > can_inject = false;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > I'm curious about that can the kvm_x86_ops.set_irq() here be possible
> > to queue the irq with EFLAGS.IF=0? If not, which code prevents it?
>
> The interrupt is only directly injected if the local APIC is _not_ in-kernel.
> If userspace is managing the local APIC, my understanding is that userspace is
> also responsible for honoring EFLAGS.IF, though KVM aids userspace by updating
> vcpu->run->ready_for_interrupt_injection when exiting to userspace. When
> userspace is modeling the local APIC, that resolves to
> kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
>
> return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
>
> where kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed() checks EFLAGS.IF (and an edge case related
> to
> nested virtualization). KVM also captures EFLAGS.IF in vcpu->run->if_flag.
> For whatever reason, QEMU checks both vcpu->run flags before injecting an IRQ,
> maybe to handle a case where QEMU itself clears EFLAGS.IF?
If userspace is managing the local APIC, the user VMM would insert IRQ
when kvm_run->ready_for_interrupt_injection=1 since this flags
implied EFLAGS.IF before this patch (for example gVisor checks this only
instead of kvm_run->if_flag). This patch claims that it has a place to
stash the IRQ when EFLAGS.IF=0, but inject_pending_event() seams to ignore
EFLAGS.IF and queues the IRQ to
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Fri, Apr 09, 2021, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:26 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr and kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection are
> > a hodge-podge of conditions, hacked together to get something that
> > more or less works. But what is actually needed is much simpler;
> > in both cases the fundamental question is, do we have a place to stash
> > an interrupt if userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT?
> >
> > In userspace irqchip mode, that is !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected.
> > Currently kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) covers it, but it is
> > unnecessarily restrictive.
> >
> > In split irqchip mode it's a bit more complicated, we need to check
> > kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu) (the IRQ window exit is basically an INTACK
> > cycle and thus requires ExtINTs not to be masked) as well as
> > !pending_userspace_extint(vcpu). However, there is no need to
> > check kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu), since split irqchip keeps
> > pending ExtINT state separate from event injection state, and checking
> > kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) is wrong too since ExtINT has higher
> > priority than APIC interrupts. In fact the latter fixes a bug:
> > when userspace requests an IRQ window vmexit, an interrupt in the
> > local APIC can cause kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() to be true and thus
> > kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection() to return false. When this
> > happens, vcpu_run does not exit to userspace but the interrupt window
> > vmexits keep occurring. The VM loops without any hope of making progress.
> >
> > Once we try to fix these with something like
> >
> > return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> > -!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) &&
> > -!kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) &&
> > -kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> > +(!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu)
> > + ? !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected
> > + : (kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu)
> > +&& !pending_userspace_extint(v)));
> >
> > we realize two things. First, thanks to the previous patch the complex
> > conditional can reuse !kvm_cpu_has_extint(vcpu). Second, the interrupt
> > window request in vcpu_enter_guest()
> >
> > bool req_int_win =
> > dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
> > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> >
> > should be kept in sync with kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
> > it is unnecessary to ask the processor for an interrupt window
> > if we would not be able to return to userspace. Therefore, the
> > complex conditional is really the correct implementation of
> > kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu). It all makes sense:
> >
> > - we can accept an interrupt from userspace if there is a place
> > to stash it (and, for irqchip split, ExtINTs are not masked).
> > Interrupts from userspace _can_ be accepted even if right now
> > EFLAGS.IF=0.
>
> Hello, Paolo
>
> If userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT, vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is
> set immediately, and in inject_pending_event(), we have
>
> else if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
> if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
> kvm_x86_ops.set_nmi(vcpu);
> can_inject = false;
> } else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
> kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu);
> can_inject = false;
> }
> }
>
> I'm curious about that can the kvm_x86_ops.set_irq() here be possible
> to queue the irq with EFLAGS.IF=0? If not, which code prevents it?
The interrupt is only directly injected if the local APIC is _not_ in-kernel.
If userspace is managing the local APIC, my understanding is that userspace is
also responsible for honoring EFLAGS.IF, though KVM aids userspace by updating
vcpu->run->ready_for_interrupt_injection when exiting to userspace. When
userspace is modeling the local APIC, that resolves to
kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
where kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed() checks EFLAGS.IF (and an edge case related to
nested virtualization). KVM also captures EFLAGS.IF in vcpu->run->if_flag.
For whatever reason, QEMU checks both vcpu->run flags before injecting an IRQ,
maybe to handle a case where QEMU itself clears EFLAGS.IF?
> I'm asking about this because I just noticed that interrupt can
> be queued when exception pending, and this patch relaxed it even
> more.
>
> Note: interrupt can NOT be queued when exception pending
> until 664f8e26b00c7 ("KVM: X86: Fix loss of exception which
> has not yet been injected") which I think is dangerous.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 7:26 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr and kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection are
> a hodge-podge of conditions, hacked together to get something that
> more or less works. But what is actually needed is much simpler;
> in both cases the fundamental question is, do we have a place to stash
> an interrupt if userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT?
>
> In userspace irqchip mode, that is !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected.
> Currently kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) covers it, but it is
> unnecessarily restrictive.
>
> In split irqchip mode it's a bit more complicated, we need to check
> kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu) (the IRQ window exit is basically an INTACK
> cycle and thus requires ExtINTs not to be masked) as well as
> !pending_userspace_extint(vcpu). However, there is no need to
> check kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu), since split irqchip keeps
> pending ExtINT state separate from event injection state, and checking
> kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) is wrong too since ExtINT has higher
> priority than APIC interrupts. In fact the latter fixes a bug:
> when userspace requests an IRQ window vmexit, an interrupt in the
> local APIC can cause kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() to be true and thus
> kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection() to return false. When this
> happens, vcpu_run does not exit to userspace but the interrupt window
> vmexits keep occurring. The VM loops without any hope of making progress.
>
> Once we try to fix these with something like
>
> return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
> -!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) &&
> -!kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) &&
> -kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> +(!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu)
> + ? !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected
> + : (kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu)
> +&& !pending_userspace_extint(v)));
>
> we realize two things. First, thanks to the previous patch the complex
> conditional can reuse !kvm_cpu_has_extint(vcpu). Second, the interrupt
> window request in vcpu_enter_guest()
>
> bool req_int_win =
> dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
> kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
>
> should be kept in sync with kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
> it is unnecessary to ask the processor for an interrupt window
> if we would not be able to return to userspace. Therefore, the
> complex conditional is really the correct implementation of
> kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu). It all makes sense:
>
> - we can accept an interrupt from userspace if there is a place
> to stash it (and, for irqchip split, ExtINTs are not masked).
> Interrupts from userspace _can_ be accepted even if right now
> EFLAGS.IF=0.
Hello, Paolo
If userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT, vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected is
set immediately, and in inject_pending_event(), we have
else if (!vcpu->arch.exception.pending) {
if (vcpu->arch.nmi_injected) {
kvm_x86_ops.set_nmi(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
} else if (vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected) {
kvm_x86_ops.set_irq(vcpu);
can_inject = false;
}
}
I'm curious about that can the kvm_x86_ops.set_irq() here be possible
to queue the irq with EFLAGS.IF=0? If not, which code prevents it?
I'm asking about this because I just noticed that interrupt can
be queued when exception pending, and this patch relaxed it even
more.
Note: interrupt can NOT be queued when exception pending
until 664f8e26b00c7 ("KVM: X86: Fix loss of exception which
has not yet been injected") which I think is dangerous.
Thanks
Lai
>
> - in order to tell userspace we will inject its interrupt ("IRQ
> window open" i.e. kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection), both
> KVM and the vCPU need to be ready to accept the interrupt.
>
> ... and this is what the patch implements.
>
> Reported-by: David Woodhouse
> Analyzed-by: David Woodhouse
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/x86/kvm/irq.c | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 17 +++--
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index d44858b69353..ddaf3e01a854 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -1655,6 +1655,7 @@ int kvm_test_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long
> hva);
> int kvm_set_spte_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva, pte_t pte);
> int kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
> int kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +int kvm_cpu_has_extint(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
> int kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> int kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
> void kvm_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event);
> diff --git
Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request
On 11/27/20 12:21 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr and kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection are
a hodge-podge of conditions, hacked together to get something that
more or less works. But what is actually needed is much simpler;
in both cases the fundamental question is, do we have a place to stash
an interrupt if userspace does KVM_INTERRUPT?
In userspace irqchip mode, that is !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected.
Currently kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) covers it, but it is
unnecessarily restrictive.
In split irqchip mode it's a bit more complicated, we need to check
kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu) (the IRQ window exit is basically an INTACK
cycle and thus requires ExtINTs not to be masked) as well as
!pending_userspace_extint(vcpu). However, there is no need to
check kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu), since split irqchip keeps
pending ExtINT state separate from event injection state, and checking
kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) is wrong too since ExtINT has higher
priority than APIC interrupts. In fact the latter fixes a bug:
when userspace requests an IRQ window vmexit, an interrupt in the
local APIC can cause kvm_cpu_has_interrupt() to be true and thus
kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection() to return false. When this
happens, vcpu_run does not exit to userspace but the interrupt window
vmexits keep occurring. The VM loops without any hope of making progress.
Once we try to fix these with something like
return kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(vcpu) &&
-!kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) &&
-!kvm_event_needs_reinjection(vcpu) &&
-kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
+(!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu)
+ ? !vcpu->arch.interrupt.injected
+ : (kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu)
+&& !pending_userspace_extint(v)));
we realize two things. First, thanks to the previous patch the complex
conditional can reuse !kvm_cpu_has_extint(vcpu). Second, the interrupt
window request in vcpu_enter_guest()
bool req_int_win =
dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
should be kept in sync with kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection():
it is unnecessary to ask the processor for an interrupt window
if we would not be able to return to userspace. Therefore, the
complex conditional is really the correct implementation of
kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu). It all makes sense:
- we can accept an interrupt from userspace if there is a place
to stash it (and, for irqchip split, ExtINTs are not masked).
Interrupts from userspace _can_ be accepted even if right now
EFLAGS.IF=0.
- in order to tell userspace we will inject its interrupt ("IRQ
window open" i.e. kvm_vcpu_ready_for_interrupt_injection), both
KVM and the vCPU need to be ready to accept the interrupt.
... and this is what the patch implements.
Reported-by: David Woodhouse
Analyzed-by: David Woodhouse
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
arch/x86/kvm/irq.c | 2 +-
arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 17 +++--
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index d44858b69353..ddaf3e01a854 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -1655,6 +1655,7 @@ int kvm_test_age_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva);
int kvm_set_spte_hva(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long hva, pte_t pte);
int kvm_cpu_has_injectable_intr(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
int kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+int kvm_cpu_has_extint(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
int kvm_arch_interrupt_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
int kvm_cpu_get_interrupt(struct kvm_vcpu *v);
void kvm_vcpu_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool init_event);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/irq.c b/arch/x86/kvm/irq.c
index e2d49a506e7f..fa01f07e449e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/irq.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/irq.c
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ static int pending_userspace_extint(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
* check if there is pending interrupt from
* non-APIC source without intack.
*/
-static int kvm_cpu_has_extint(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
+int kvm_cpu_has_extint(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
{
/*
* FIXME: interrupt.injected represents an interrupt that it's
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index 447edc0d1d5a..54124b6211df 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -4051,21 +4051,22 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_ioctl_set_lapic(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu,
static int kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
- return (!lapic_in_kernel(vcpu) ||
- kvm_apic_accept_pic_intr(vcpu));
+ /*
+* We can accept userspace's request for interrupt injection
+* as long as we have a place to store the interrupt number.
+* The actual injection will happen when the CPU is able to
+* deliver the interrupt.
+*/
+ if
