On 23.08.18 14:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 23/08/18 13:24, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> On 08/23/2018 01:16 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 21/08/18 17:54, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>> On 08/21/2018 05:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 21/08/18 15:08, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/21/2018 03:57 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/08/18 14:35, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/23/2017 06:11 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The only case where we actually need to perform a dcache maintenance
>>>>>>>>> is when we map the page for the first time, and subsequent permission
>>>>>>>>> faults do not require cache maintenance. Let's make it conditional
>>>>>>>>> on not being a permission fault (and thus a translation fault).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@linaro.org>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
>>>>>>>> This patch unfortunately breaks something on Hi1616 SoCs when running
>>>>>>>> 32bit guests. With this patch applied (and thus with 4.18) I get random
>>>>>>>> illegal instruction warnings from 32bit code inside VMs. I do not know
>>>>>>>> at this point whether this affects other CPUs as well.
>>>>>>> Can you please give a few more details?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - what are the CPUs on this Hi1616? At least a /proc/cpuinfo would help
>>>>>> These are A72s:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> processor    : 0
>>>>>> BogoMIPS    : 100.00
>>>>>> Features    : fp asimd evtstrm aes pmull sha1 sha2 crc32 cpuid
>>>>>> CPU implementer    : 0x41
>>>>>> CPU architecture: 8
>>>>>> CPU variant    : 0x0
>>>>>> CPU part    : 0xd08
>>>>>> CPU revision    : 2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - an example of the crash? Is it within the decompressor? After? This
>>>>>>> things do matter, given the number of crazy things the 32bit kernel does
>>>>>> They are always in user space. My current reproducer is this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      $ while rpm -qa > /dev/null; do :; done
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I run this in parallel with something that just populates RAM (dd
>>>>>> if=/dev/nvme0n1 of=/dev/null bs=10G) I get an illegal instruction fault
>>>>>> within seconds:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> sh-4.4# while rpm -qa > /dev/null; do true; done
>>>>>> Illegal instruction (core dumped)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - a host kernel configuration?
>>>>>> Host kernel configuration is just the normal openSUSE one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel-source/plain/config/arm64/default?h=stable
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If anyone is interested in a reproducer, I have something handy. But 
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> now I believe we should just revert this patch.
>>>>>>> Before we revert anything, I'd like to understand what is happening.
>>>>>> Yeah, I didn't realize the commit is already in since 4.16, so I agree.
>>>>>> I'll bisect a bit, but it may take a while.
>>>>> Do you mind giving this a try?
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> index 1d90d79706bd..df8f3d5eaa22 100644
>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmu.c
>>>>> @@ -1531,7 +1536,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
>>>>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>                           kvm_set_pfn_dirty(pfn);
>>>>>                   }
>>>>>    
>>>>> -         if (fault_status != FSC_PERM)
>>>>> +         if (fault_status != FSC_PERM || write_fault)
>>>>>                           clean_dcache_guest_page(pfn, PMD_SIZE);
>>>>>    
>>>>>                   if (exec_fault) {
>>>>> @@ -1553,7 +1558,7 @@ static int user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
>>>>> phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
>>>>>                           mark_page_dirty(kvm, gfn);
>>>>>                   }
>>>>>    
>>>>> -         if (fault_status != FSC_PERM)
>>>>> +         if (fault_status != FSC_PERM || write_fault)
>>>>>                           clean_dcache_guest_page(pfn, PAGE_SIZE);
>>>>>    
>>>>>                   if (exec_fault) {
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The missing logic is that a write from the guest could have triggered
>>>>> a CoW, meaning we definitely need to flush it in that case too. It
>>>>> fixes a kvm-unit-test regression here.
>>>> This patch unfortunately does not fix the issue. I still see illegal
>>>> instructions.
>>> [+Dave]
>>>
>>> That's because what you're observing has nothing to do with caching, but
>>> with FP/SIMD trapping instead. Thanks to the guest image you've provided,
>>> I've been able to extract the following:
>>>
>>> [    3.944273] systemd-udevd (266): undefined instruction: pc=(ptrval)
>>> [    3.945396] CPU: 0 PID: 266 Comm: systemd-udevd Not tainted 
>>> 4.17.14-2-lpae #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed (unreleased)
>>> [    3.947130] Hardware name: Generic DT based system
>>> [    3.947976] PC is at 0xb6b9397a
>>> [    3.948547] LR is at 0xb6e9a1b0
>>> [    3.958291] pc : [<b6b9397a>]    lr : [<b6e9a1b0>]    psr: 20070030
>>> [    3.959664] sp : bebe36a0  ip : b6f6ad50  fp : 005e8784
>>> [    3.960601] r10: bebe3814  r9 : bebe36c0  r8 : bebe36bc
>>> [    3.961522] r7 : bebe3814  r6 : 00000074  r5 : 00000000  r4 : 00000000
>>> [    3.962661] r3 : 005f2b60  r2 : 00000074  r1 : 00000000  r0 : bebe3814
>>> [    3.963801] Flags: nzCv  IRQs on  FIQs on  Mode USER_32  ISA Thumb  
>>> Segment user
>>> [    4.000606] Control: 30c5383d  Table: 6a8e7400  DAC: fffffffd
>>> [    4.001659] Code: d1f9 f1a0 0001 4770 (eee0) 1b10
>>>
>>> maz@flakes:~/armv7-build-fail$ (echo .thumb; echo .inst.w 0xeee01b10) > x.S 
>>> &&  arm-linux-gnueabihf-gcc -c x.S && arm-linux-gnueabihf-objdump -d x.o
>>>
>>> x.o:     file format elf32-littlearm
>>>
>>>
>>> Disassembly of section .text:
>>>
>>> 00000000 <.text>:
>>>     0:      eee0 1b10       vdup.8  q0, r1
>>>
>>> A VFP instruction. Given that you've reported that things worked in
>>> 4.17 and broke in 4.18, I strongly suspect the new lazy FPSIMD code.
>>> Upon inspection, the way we setup trapping for 32bit is a tiny bit
>>> suspect.
>>>
>>> Could you please give this patch a go? My Seattle has been running
>>> with it for 30 minutes now, and it is still running (instead of
>>> failing with seconds).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>     M.
>>>
>>>  From f2d1d43e2429f9269ab6c565440e095ab3a9be89 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:51:43 +0100
>>> Subject: [PATCH] arm64: KVM: Only force FPEXC32_EL2.EN if trapping FPSIMD
>>>
>>> If trapping FPSIMD in the context of an AArch32 guest, it is critical
>>> to set FPEXC32_EL2.EN to 1 so that the trapping is taken to EL2 and
>>> not EL1.
>>>
>>> Conversely, it is just as critical *not* to set FPEXC32_EL2.EN to 1
>>> if we're not going to trap FPSIMD, as we then corrupt the existing
>>> VFP state.
>>>
>>> Moving the call to __activate_traps_fpsimd32 to the point where we
>>> know for sure that we are going to trap ensures that we don't set that
>>> bit spuriously.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e6b673b741ea ("KVM: arm64: Optimise FPSIMD handling to reduce 
>>> guest/host thrashing")
>>> Cc: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
>>> Reported-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
>>
>> Very good catch. This patch does indeed fix it. I'm still puzzled why 
>> reverting the dcache patch actually had any positive effect, but oh well 
>> ... :)
> 
> Well, there is still a bug in that dcache patch, which I've fixed
> separately (in a better way than what I sent before), so you may have
> hit that as well, but that's not the most visible bug.
> 
>> Tested-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
> 
> Thanks for that.

Can I expect to see your patch in 4.19 and 4.18-stable? :)


Alex
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to