From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4503494A6 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:35:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2B18E33E4 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:35:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:35:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A817A43E71 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:35:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <2c536056-ee40-59b2-5197-d5dcb6730f4f@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 09:35:33 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stoiko Ivanov References: <20230824143021.2440581-1-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> <20230824143021.2440581-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230824143021.2440581-3-s.ivanov@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.387 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -2.919 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH pve-kernel 2/2] cherry-pick fix for uefi guests hanging upon guest-initialized reboot X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 07:35:41 -0000 Am 24.08.23 um 16:30 schrieb Stoiko Ivanov: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230608090348.414990-1-gshan@redhat.com/ > Note that this is actually about an older version of the patch. > + > +We tried a git-bisect and the first problematic commit is cd4c71835228 (" > +KVM: arm64: Convert to the gfn-based MMU notifier callbacks"). With this, > +clean_dcache_guest_page() is called after the memory slots are iterated > +in kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte(). clean_dcache_guest_page() is called > +before the iteration on the memory slots before this commit. This change > +literally enlarges the racy window between kvm_mmu_notifier_change_pte() > +and memory slot removal so that we're able to reproduce the issue in a > +practical test case. However, the issue exists since commit d5d8184d35c9 > +("KVM: ARM: Memory virtualization setup"). > + > +Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.9+ > +Fixes: d5d8184d35c9 ("KVM: ARM: Memory virtualization setup") The mentioned commits and reading in the mail thread >> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v5.13+ >> Fixes: 3039bcc74498 ("KVM: Move x86's MMU notifier memslot walkers to generic code") > > This Fixes isn't correct. That change only affected x86, which doesn't have this > bug. And looking at commit cd4c71835228 ("KVM: arm64: Convert to the gfn-based MMU > notifier callbacks"), arm64 did NOT skip invalid slots unfortunately make it sound like it's not an x86 issue. But who knows? I guess it won't hurt in either case, as it's already in upstream stable.