[PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Don't populate multiple LRs with the same vintid

[Christoffer Dall]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:19:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 07/03/18 23:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 12:40 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
> >> The vgic code is trying to be clever when injecting GICv2 SGIs,
> >> and will happily populate LRs with the same interrupt number if
> >> they come from multiple vcpus (after all, they are distinct
> >> interrupt sources).
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, this is against the letter of the architecture,
> >> and the GICv2 architecture spec says "Each valid interrupt stored
> >> in the List registers must have a unique VirtualID for that
> >> virtual CPU interface.". GICv3 has similar (although slightly
> >> ambiguous) restrictions.
> >>
> >> This results in guests locking up when using GICv2-on-GICv3, for
> >> example. The obvious fix is to stop trying so hard, and inject
> >> a single vcpu per SGI per guest entry. After all, pending SGIs
> >> with multiple source vcpus are pretty rare, and are mostly seen
> >> in scenario where the physical CPUs are severely overcomitted.
> >>
> >> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org
> >> Fixes: 0919e84c0fc1 ("KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Add IRQ sync/flush framework")
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c | 11 +----------
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> >> index c7c5ef190afa..1f7ff175f47b 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> >> @@ -720,18 +720,9 @@ static void vgic_flush_lr_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>         list_for_each_entry(irq, &vgic_cpu->ap_list_head, ap_list) {
> >>                 spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> >>
> >> -               if (unlikely(vgic_target_oracle(irq) != vcpu))
> >> -                       goto next;
> >> -
> >> -               /*
> >> -                * If we get an SGI with multiple sources, try to get
> >> -                * them in all at once.
> >> -                */
> >> -               do {
> >> +               if (likely(vgic_target_oracle(irq) == vcpu))
> >>                         vgic_populate_lr(vcpu, irq, count++);
> > 
> > I think we need to change vgic_populate_lr to set the EOI maintenance
> > interrupt flag so that when the interrupt is deactivated, if there are
> > additional pending sources, we exit the guest and pick up the
> > interrupt.
> 
> Potentially. We need to be careful about about the semantics of EOI MI
> with non-level interrupts (see the other thread about EOI signalling).

I'll have a look.

> 
> > An alternative would be to set the underflow interrupt, but I don't
> > think that would be correct for multiple priorities, because the SGI
> > could have a higher priority than other pending interrupts we put in
> > the LR.
> 
> I don't think priorities are the issue (after all, we already sort the
> irqs in order of priority). 

Yes, but assume you have three pending interrupts, one SGI from two
sources, and one SPI, and assume that the SGI has priority 1 and SPI
priority 2 (lower means higher priority), then I think with underflow or
the no-pending interrupt flag, we'll deliver the SGI from the first
source, and then the SPI, and then exiting to pick up the last SGI from
the other source.  That's not how I understand the GIC architecture is
supposed to work.  Am I missing something?

> My worry is that underflow is allowed to
> fire if there is one interrupt pending, which implies that you could
> end-up in a livelock scenario if you only have one SGI pending with
> multiple sources.

Yes, doesn't work, so I think it should be a maintenance interrupt on
EOI.

> 
> Another possibility would be to use ICH_HCR_EL2.NPIE (GICH_HCR.NPIE on
> GICv2), which delivers a a MI if no pending interrupts are present. Once
> the SGI has been activated, we're guaranteed to be able to inject a new
> pending one.
> 
> I like the latter, because it doesn't overload the rest of the code with
> new semantics. Thoughts?
> 

I'm fine with that if I can be proven wrong about the multiple sources
and priorities.

Thanks,
-Christoffer