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;
Date:   Wed, 25 Aug 2021 20:09:34 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: x86: Register Processor Trace interrupt hook
 iff PT enabled in guest
Message-ID: <YSajfuw7P2wacTGY@google.com>
References: <20210823193709.55886-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210823193709.55886-3-seanjc@google.com>
 <3021c1cc-a4eb-e3ab-d6b7-558cbaefd03b@gmail.com>
 <YSZa7dkw6t7yN6vL@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YSZa7dkw6t7yN6vL@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 25, 2021, Like Xu wrote:
> > On 24/8/2021 3:37 am, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > @@ -11061,6 +11061,8 @@ int kvm_arch_hardware_setup(void *opaque)
> > >   	memcpy(&kvm_x86_ops, ops->runtime_ops, sizeof(kvm_x86_ops));
> > >   	kvm_ops_static_call_update();
> > > +	if (ops->intel_pt_intr_in_guest && ops->intel_pt_intr_in_guest())
> > > +		kvm_guest_cbs.handle_intel_pt_intr = kvm_handle_intel_pt_intr;
> > 
> > Emm, it's still buggy.
> > 
> > The guest "unknown NMI" from the host Intel PT can still be reproduced
> > after the following operation:
> > 
> > 	rmmod kvm_intel
> > 	modprobe kvm-intel pt_mode=1 ept=1
> > 	rmmod kvm_intel
> > 	modprobe kvm-intel pt_mode=1 ept=0
> > 
> > Since the handle_intel_pt_intr is not reset to NULL in kvm_arch_hardware_unsetup(),
> > and the previous function pointer still exists in the generic KVM data structure.
> 
> Ooof, good catch.  Any preference between nullifying handle_intel_pt_intr in
> setup() vs. unsetup()?  I think I like the idea of "unwinding" during unsetup(),
> even though it splits the logic a bit.

Never mind, I figured out a way to clean all this up and land the PT interrupt
handler in vmx.c where it belongs.  Getting there is a bit of a journey, but it's
very doable.  That means unwinding in unsetup() is the preferred approach,
otherwise there would be potential for leaving a dangling pointer if a different
vendor module was succesfully loaded.