Re: PANIC: double fault, error_code: 0x0 in 4.0.0-rc3-2, kvm related?

[Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>]

At Mon, 23 Mar 2015 11:48:42 -0700,
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On 03/23/2015 02:22 PM, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>> At Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:35:41 +0100,
> >>> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> At Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:02:52 +0100,
> >>>> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At Fri, 20 Mar 2015 19:16:53 +0100,
> >>>>> Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> >
> >>> I'm really puzzled now.  We have a few pieces of information:
> >>>
> >>> - git bisection pointed the commit 96b6352c1271:
> >>>     x86_64, entry: Remove the syscall exit audit and schedule optimizations
> >>>   and reverting this "fixes" the problem indeed.  Even just moving two
> >>>   lines
> >>>     LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT
> >>>     DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
> >>>   at the beginning of ret_from_sys_call already fixes.  (Of course I
> >>>   can't prove the fix but it stabilizes for a day without crash while
> >>>   usually I hit the bug in 10 minutes in full test running.)
> >>
> >> The commit 96b6352c1271 moved TIF_ALLWORK_MASK check from
> >> interrupt-disabled region to interrupt-enabled:
> >>
> >>         cmpq $__NR_syscall_max,%rax
> >>         ja ret_from_sys_call
> >>         movq %r10,%rcx
> >>         call *sys_call_table(,%rax,8)  # XXX:    rip relative
> >>         movq %rax,RAX-ARGOFFSET(%rsp)
> >> ret_from_sys_call:
> >>         testl $_TIF_ALLWORK_MASK,TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP-ARGOFFSET)
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>         jnz int_ret_from_sys_call_fixup /* Go the the slow path */
> >>         LOCKDEP_SYS_EXIT
> >>         DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
> >>         TRACE_IRQS_OFF
> >> ...
> >> ...
> >> int_ret_from_sys_call_fixup:
> >>         FIXUP_TOP_OF_STACK %r11, -ARGOFFSET
> >>         jmp int_ret_from_sys_call
> >> ...
> >> ...
> >> GLOBAL(int_ret_from_sys_call)
> >>         DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE)
> >>         TRACE_IRQS_OFF
> >>
> >> You reverted that by moving this insn to be after first DISABLE_INTERRUPTS(CLBR_NONE).
> >>
> >> I also don't see how moving that check (even if it is wrong in a more
> >> benign way) can have such a drastic effect.
> >
> > I bet I see it.  I have the advantage of having stared at KVM code and
> > cursed at it more recently than you, I suspect.  KVM does awful, awful
> > things to CPU state, and, as an optimization, it allows kernel code to
> > run with CPU state that would be totally invalid in user mode.  This
> > happens through a bunch of hooks, including this bit in __switch_to:
> >
> >     /*
> >      * Now maybe reload the debug registers and handle I/O bitmaps
> >      */
> >     if (unlikely(task_thread_info(next_p)->flags & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_NEXT ||
> >              task_thread_info(prev_p)->flags & _TIF_WORK_CTXSW_PREV))
> >         __switch_to_xtra(prev_p, next_p, tss);
> >
> > IOW, we *change* tif during context switches.
> >
> >
> > The race looks like this:
> >
> >     testl $_TIF_ALLWORK_MASK,TI_flags+THREAD_INFO(%rsp,RIP)
> >     jnz int_ret_from_sys_call_fixup    /* Go the the slow path */
> >
> > --- preempted here, switch to KVM guest ---
> >
> > KVM guest enters and screws up, say, MSR_SYSCALL_MASK.  This wouldn't
> > happen to be a *32-bit* KVM guest, perhaps?
> >
> > Now KVM schedules, calling __switch_to.  __switch_to sets
> > _TIF_USER_RETURN_NOTIFY.  We IRET back to the syscall exit code, turn
> > off interrupts, and do sysret.  We are now screwed.
> >
> > I don't know why this manifests in this particular failure, but any
> > number of terrible things could happen now.
> >
> > FWIW, this will affect things other than KVM.  For example, SIGKILL
> > sent while a process is sleeping in that two-instruction window won't
> > work.
> >
> > Takashi, can you re-send your patch so we can review it for real in
> > light of this race?
> 
> Never mind, I'm testing a slightly fancier patch.

OK, I'll wait for your test patch.


thanks,

Takashi