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:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:02:06 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com,
        alexandru.elisei@arm.com, anup.patel@wdc.com,
        aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@wdc.com,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, bp@alien8.de, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        chenhuacai@kernel.org, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        david@redhat.com, frankja@linux.ibm.com, frederic@kernel.org,
        gor@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, jmattson@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, maz@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au, nsaenzju@redhat.com, palmer@dabbelt.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
        seanjc@google.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        tsbogend@alpha.franken.de, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        wanpengli@tencent.com, will@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] kvm: fix latent guest entry/exit bugs
Message-ID: <20220118120154.GA17938@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
References: <20220111153539.2532246-1-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <127a6117-85fb-7477-983c-daf09e91349d@linux.ibm.com>
 <YeFqUlhqY+7uzUT1@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <ae1a42ab-f719-4a4e-8d2a-e2b4fa6e9580@linux.ibm.com>
 <YeF7Wvz05JhyCx0l@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <b66c4856-7826-9cff-83f3-007d7ed5635c@linux.ibm.com>
 <YeGUnwhbSvwJz5pD@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <8aa0cada-7f00-47b3-41e4-8a9e7beaae47@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8aa0cada-7f00-47b3-41e4-8a9e7beaae47@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 06:45:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/14/22 16:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I also think there is another issue here. When an IRQ is taken from SIE, will
> > user_mode(regs) always be false, or could it be true if the guest userspace is
> > running? If it can be true I think tha context tracking checks can complain,
> > and it*might*  be possible to trigger a panic().
> 
> I think that it would be false, because the guest PSW is in the SIE block
> and switched on SIE entry and exit, but I might be incorrect.

Ah; that's the crux of my confusion: I had thought the guest PSW would
be placed in the regular lowcore *_old_psw slots. From looking at the
entry asm it looks like the host PSW (around the invocation of SIE) is
stored there, since that's what the OUTSIDE + SIEEXIT handling is
checking for.

Assuming that's correct, I agree this problem doesn't exist, and there's
only the common RCU/tracing/lockdep management to fix.

Sorry for the noise, and thanks for the pointer!

Thanks,
Mark.