Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-201298-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 21:38:53 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	syzkaller@googlegroups.com, elver@google.com, glider@google.com,
	nogikh@google.com, tarasmadan@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/entry: Remove unwanted instrumentation in
 common_interrupt()
Message-ID: <20240604193853.GR40213@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <cover.1717507310.git.dvyukov@google.com>
 <1ada3be307bbd076c4ea63530cf445e7fbd0e4e7.1717507310.git.dvyukov@google.com>
 <3f15814c-de9c-4aa6-b56d-82761bb6520a@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3f15814c-de9c-4aa6-b56d-82761bb6520a@intel.com>

On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 09:00:59AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/4/24 06:45, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > The manifestation is that KCOV produces spurious coverage
> > in kvm_set_cpu_l1tf_flush_l1d() in random places because
> > the call happens when preempt count is not yet updated
> > to say that we are in an interrupt.
> > 
> > Mark kvm_set_cpu_l1tf_flush_l1d() as __always_inline and move
> > out of instrumentation_begin/end() section.
> > It only calls __this_cpu_write() which is already safe to call
> > in noinstr contexts.
> 
> I've internalized the main rules around noinstr to basically be: Only
> call noinstr functions before begin_instrumentation().  Second, try to
> minimize the amount of noinstr code.
> 
> This patch seems to be adding another rule which is that all code before
> preempt_count manipulation needs to be noinstr.
> 
> _Is_ that a new rule, or was it something I was missing?

Specifically, the problem here appears to be that the instrumentation
cannot correctly identify the context because the HARDIRQ_MASK bits
aren't yet set in preempt_count.

So the preempt_count manipulations as such are not the problem, but the
fact that we call into instrumentation code that seems to rely on using
the preempt_count to determine context is.

Does that clarify?