Re: Should SEV-ES #VC use IST? (Re: [PATCH] Allow RDTSC and RDTSCP from userspace)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2020-06-23 10:46:42
Also in:
kvm, lkml
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:45:19AM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote:
Hi Andy, On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 10:37:41AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:quoted
1. Use IST for #VC and deal with all the mess that entails.With the removal of IST shifting I wonder what you would suggest on how to best implement an NMI-safe IST handler with nesting support. My current plan is to implement an IST handler which switches itself off the IST stack as soon as possible, freeing it for re-use. The flow would be roughly like this upon entering the handler; build_pt_regs(); RSP = pt_regs->sp; if (RSP in VC_IST_stack) error("unallowed nesting") if (RSP in current_kernel_stack) RSP = round_down_to_8(RSP) else RSP = current_top_of_stack() // non-ist kernel stack copy_pt_regs(pt_regs, RSP); switch_stack_to(RSP); To make this NMI safe, the NMI handler needs some logic too. Upon entering NMI, it needs to check the return RSP, and if it is in the #VC IST stack, it must do the above flow by itself and update the return RSP and RIP. It needs to take into account the case when PT_REGS is not fully populated on the return side. Alternativly the NMI handler could safe/restore the contents of the #VC IST stack or just switch to a special #VC-in-NMI IST stack. All in all it could get complicated, and imho shift_ist would have been simpler, but who am I anyway... Or maybe you have a better idea how to implement this, so I'd like to hear your opinion first before I spend too many days implementing something.
OK, excuse my ignorance, but I'm not seeing how that IST shifting nonsense would've helped in the first place. If I understand correctly the problem is: <#VC> shift IST <NMI> ... does stuff <#VC> # again, safe because the shift But what happens if you get the NMI before your IST adjustment? <#VC> <NMI> ... does stuff <#VC> # again, happily wrecks your earlier #VC shift IST # whoopsy, too late Either way around we get to fix this up in NMI (and any other IST exception that can happen while in #VC, hello #MC). And more complexity there is the very last thing we need :-( There's no way you can fix up the IDT without getting an NMI first. This entire exception model is fundamentally buggered :-/