DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com A934C356E2
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 14:30:20 +0200
From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: nVMX: Fix attempting to emulate "Acknowledge
 interrupt on exit" when there is no interrupt which L1 requires to inject to
 L2
Message-ID: <20170803123020.GA1015@flask>
References: <1501670903-3368-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <20170802202628.GB32403@flask>
 <CANRm+CzTh2Vc+6QRxPq4hfKYuybNsQSjK0kdhHze72S9OtaPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+CzTh2Vc+6QRxPq4hfKYuybNsQSjK0kdhHze72S9OtaPfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1489
Lines: 31

2017-08-03 07:01+0800, Wanpeng Li:
> 2017-08-03 4:26 GMT+08:00 Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>:
> > 2017-08-02 03:48-0700, Wanpeng Li:
> >> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
> >> @@ -10761,7 +10761,8 @@ static int vmx_check_nested_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool external_intr)
> >>               return 0;
> >>       }
> >>
> >> -     if ((kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) || external_intr) &&
> >> +     if ((kvm_cpu_has_interrupt(vcpu) ||
> >> +         (external_intr && !nested_exit_intr_ack_set(vcpu))) &&
> >
> > I think it would be safer to also add something like the second hunk I
> > posted (that also takes nested_exit_on_intr() into account).
> >
> > The issue is that we're allowing L2's GUEST_RFLAGS and
> > GUEST_INTERRUPTIBILITY_INFO to disable userspace interrupt injection
> > even though neither affect delivery of interrupts into L1.
> > This means that L2 can block/postpone the delivery to L1 by doing "cli;
> > busy_loop/normal_critical_section".
> 
> Ouch! My fault, the v3 patch w/o the second hunk and w/ the second
> hunk both can result in L1 guest softlockup. I just tested the patch
> with L2 windows guest yesterday, however, the softlockup can happen
> when the L2 is the linux guest. So should we still take the v2 for the
> moment?

Sure, that one is an improvement over the current situation (I guess it
doesn't break any hypervisor).
I'll just add a comment about its incorrectness.