Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/9] KVM: VMX: Add guest physical address check in EPT
 violation and misconfig
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        Mohammed Gamal <mgamal@redhat.com>
Cc:     kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        vkuznets@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, jmattson@google.com,
        joro@8bytes.org
References: <20200710154811.418214-1-mgamal@redhat.com>
 <20200710154811.418214-8-mgamal@redhat.com>
 <20200715230006.GF12349@linux.intel.com>
 <20200817172233.GF22407@linux.intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <f3595331-07e2-55d8-d390-4f421d8e5561@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 17 Aug 2020 20:01:00 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200817172233.GF22407@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 17/08/20 19:22, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> This splats when running the PKU unit test, although the test still passed.
>> I haven't yet spent the brain power to determine if this is a benign warning,
>> i.e. simply unexpected, or if permission_fault() fault truly can't handle PK
>> faults.

It's more or less unexpected; the error is in the caller.  This is not
an error code but an access mask so only U/F/W bits are valid.  Patch
sent, thanks.

Paolo

>>   WARNING: CPU: 25 PID: 5465 at arch/x86/kvm/mmu.h:197 paging64_walk_addr_generic+0x594/0x750 [kvm]
>>   Hardware name: Intel Corporation WilsonCity/WilsonCity, BIOS WLYDCRB1.SYS.0014.D62.2001092233 01/09/2020
>>   RIP: 0010:paging64_walk_addr_generic+0x594/0x750 [kvm]
>>   Code: <0f> 0b e9 db fe ff ff 44 8b 43 04 4c 89 6c 24 30 8b 13 41 39 d0 89
>>   RSP: 0018:ff53778fc623fb60 EFLAGS: 00010202
>>   RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ff53778fc623fbf0 RCX: 0000000000000007
>>   RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: 0000000000000002 RDI: ff4501efba818000
>>   RBP: 0000000000000020 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 00000000004000e7
>>   R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: 0000000000000007
>>   R13: ff4501efba818388 R14: 10000000004000e7 R15: 0000000000000000
>>   FS:  00007f2dcf31a700(0000) GS:ff4501f1c8040000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>>   CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>   CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000001dea475005 CR4: 0000000000763ee0
>>   DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>>   DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>>   PKRU: 55555554
>>   Call Trace:
>>    paging64_gva_to_gpa+0x3f/0xb0 [kvm]
>>    kvm_fixup_and_inject_pf_error+0x48/0xa0 [kvm]
>>    handle_exception_nmi+0x4fc/0x5b0 [kvm_intel]
>>    kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run+0x911/0x1c10 [kvm]
>>    kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x23e/0x5d0 [kvm]
>>    ksys_ioctl+0x92/0xb0
>>    __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20
>>    do_syscall_64+0x3e/0xb0
>>    entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
>>   ---[ end trace d17eb998aee991da ]---
> 
> Looks like this series got pulled for 5.9, has anyone looked into this?
>