Potentially, the guests could trigger a debug exception that's
outside the exception class range. This could lead to an
excessive syslog flooding. Hence, ratelimit the error message.
Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
index 04ebab299aa4..c7cec7ffe93c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
break;
default:
- kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
+ kvm_pr_unimpl("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
__func__, (unsigned int) esr);
ret = -1;
break;
--
2.33.0.rc2.250.ged5fa647cd-goog
On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:34:06 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Potentially, the guests could trigger a debug exception that's
> outside the exception class range.
How? All the exception classes that lead to this functions are already
handled in the switch/case statement.
> This could lead to an excessive syslog flooding. Hence, ratelimit
> the error message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> index 04ebab299aa4..c7cec7ffe93c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
> break;
> default:
> - kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
> + kvm_pr_unimpl("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
> __func__, (unsigned int) esr);
> ret = -1;
> break;
My take on this is that this code isn't reachable, and that it could
be better rewritten as:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
index 6f48336b1d86..ae7ec086827b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
@@ -119,28 +119,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run;
u32 esr = kvm_vcpu_get_esr(vcpu);
- int ret = 0;
run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
run->debug.arch.hsr = esr;
- switch (ESR_ELx_EC(esr)) {
- case ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW:
+ if (ESR_ELx_EC(esr) == ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW)
run->debug.arch.far = vcpu->arch.fault.far_el2;
- fallthrough;
- case ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW:
- case ESR_ELx_EC_BREAKPT_LOW:
- case ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32:
- case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
- break;
- default:
- kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
- __func__, (unsigned int) esr);
- ret = -1;
- break;
- }
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
static int kvm_handle_unknown_ec(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:01:24 +0100,
Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 2:29 AM Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:34:06 +0100,
> > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Potentially, the guests could trigger a debug exception that's
> > > outside the exception class range.
> >
> > How? All the exception classes that lead to this functions are already
> > handled in the switch/case statement.
> >
> I guess I didn't think this through. Landing into kvm_handle_guest_debug()
> itself is not possible :)
Exactly.
> > My take on this is that this code isn't reachable, and that it could
> > be better rewritten as:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > index 6f48336b1d86..ae7ec086827b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > @@ -119,28 +119,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run;
> > u32 esr = kvm_vcpu_get_esr(vcpu);
> > - int ret = 0;
> >
> > run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
> > run->debug.arch.hsr = esr;
> >
> > - switch (ESR_ELx_EC(esr)) {
> > - case ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW:
> > + if (ESR_ELx_EC(esr) == ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW)
> > run->debug.arch.far = vcpu->arch.fault.far_el2;
> > - fallthrough;
> > - case ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW:
> > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BREAKPT_LOW:
> > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32:
> > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
> > - break;
> > - default:
> > - kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
> > - __func__, (unsigned int) esr);
> > - ret = -1;
> > - break;
> > - }
> >
> > - return ret;
> > + return 0;
> > }
> >
> This looks better, but do you think we would be compromising on readability?
I don't think so. The exit handler table is, on its own, pretty
explicit about what we route to this handler, and the comment above
the function clearly states that we exit to userspace for all the
debug ECs.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 3:56 AM Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:01:24 +0100,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 2:29 AM Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:34:06 +0100,
> > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Potentially, the guests could trigger a debug exception that's
> > > > outside the exception class range.
> > >
> > > How? All the exception classes that lead to this functions are already
> > > handled in the switch/case statement.
> > >
> > I guess I didn't think this through. Landing into kvm_handle_guest_debug()
> > itself is not possible :)
>
> Exactly.
>
> > > My take on this is that this code isn't reachable, and that it could
> > > be better rewritten as:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > > index 6f48336b1d86..ae7ec086827b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
> > > @@ -119,28 +119,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run;
> > > u32 esr = kvm_vcpu_get_esr(vcpu);
> > > - int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
> > > run->debug.arch.hsr = esr;
> > >
> > > - switch (ESR_ELx_EC(esr)) {
> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW:
> > > + if (ESR_ELx_EC(esr) == ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW)
> > > run->debug.arch.far = vcpu->arch.fault.far_el2;
> > > - fallthrough;
> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW:
> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BREAKPT_LOW:
> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32:
> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
> > > - break;
> > > - default:
> > > - kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
> > > - __func__, (unsigned int) esr);
> > > - ret = -1;
> > > - break;
> > > - }
> > >
> > > - return ret;
> > > + return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > This looks better, but do you think we would be compromising on readability?
>
> I don't think so. The exit handler table is, on its own, pretty
> explicit about what we route to this handler, and the comment above
> the function clearly states that we exit to userspace for all the
> debug ECs.
Sounds great. I'm happy to send out a patch with you as 'Suggested-by' , if you
are okay with it.
Regards,
Raghavendra
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
On 2021-08-23 19:13, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 3:56 AM Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Aug 2021 00:01:24 +0100,
>> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> > [1 <text/plain; UTF-8 (7bit)>]
>> > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 2:29 AM Marc Zyngier <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:34:06 +0100,
>> > > Raghavendra Rao Ananta <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Potentially, the guests could trigger a debug exception that's
>> > > > outside the exception class range.
>> > >
>> > > How? All the exception classes that lead to this functions are already
>> > > handled in the switch/case statement.
>> > >
>> > I guess I didn't think this through. Landing into kvm_handle_guest_debug()
>> > itself is not possible :)
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> > > My take on this is that this code isn't reachable, and that it could
>> > > be better rewritten as:
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> > > index 6f48336b1d86..ae7ec086827b 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> > > @@ -119,28 +119,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu
>> > *vcpu)
>> > > {
>> > > struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run;
>> > > u32 esr = kvm_vcpu_get_esr(vcpu);
>> > > - int ret = 0;
>> > >
>> > > run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
>> > > run->debug.arch.hsr = esr;
>> > >
>> > > - switch (ESR_ELx_EC(esr)) {
>> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW:
>> > > + if (ESR_ELx_EC(esr) == ESR_ELx_EC_WATCHPT_LOW)
>> > > run->debug.arch.far = vcpu->arch.fault.far_el2;
>> > > - fallthrough;
>> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW:
>> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BREAKPT_LOW:
>> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32:
>> > > - case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
>> > > - break;
>> > > - default:
>> > > - kvm_err("%s: un-handled case esr: %#08x\n",
>> > > - __func__, (unsigned int) esr);
>> > > - ret = -1;
>> > > - break;
>> > > - }
>> > >
>> > > - return ret;
>> > > + return 0;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > This looks better, but do you think we would be compromising on readability?
>>
>> I don't think so. The exit handler table is, on its own, pretty
>> explicit about what we route to this handler, and the comment above
>> the function clearly states that we exit to userspace for all the
>> debug ECs.
>
> Sounds great. I'm happy to send out a patch with you as 'Suggested-by'
> , if you
> are okay with it.
Fire away!
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...