Multiplexing RFLAGS.TF
static int db_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm)
{
struct kvm_run *kvm_run = svm->vcpu.run;
if (!(svm->vcpu.guest_debug &
(KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP | KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP)) &&
!svm->nmi_singlestep) {
kvm_queue_exception(&svm->vcpu, DB_VECTOR);
return 1;
}
if (svm->nmi_singlestep) {
svm->nmi_singlestep = false;
if (!(svm->vcpu.guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP))
svm->vmcb->save.rflags &=
~(X86_EFLAGS_TF | X86_EFLAGS_RF);
update_db_intercept(&svm->vcpu);
}This code assumes that either the guest is debugging itself, or (nmi_singlestep | guest debugging). However if the guest is debugging itself and takes an NMI, or if both host and guest are debugging the guest, things will go wrong.
So we need an rflags_guest_owned_bits, usually set to -1ULL, but sometimes (NMI, host debugging) clearing EFLAGS_TF. When we do that, we need to intercept instructions that influence RFLAGS.TF (POPF, IRET, INTn) and emulate them. Otherwise, the guest can disable tracing which was enabled on behalf of the host.
We also need to drop the 'return 1' on the top of the function to allow both guest and host tracing.
On Intel, the situation is harder. We can't trap POPF or IRET. What we can do, is use the Monitor Trap Flag on hosts that have it.
Comments? Perhaps I missed something. Maybe I'll try writing a test case to prove the brokenness, it's fashionable these days.
Jan, as this is your code, are you interested in doing this?
Sheng, the Intel bits?
Signature · 1 line
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Quoted 19 lines · Avi Kivity
static int
db_interception(struct vcpu_svm *svm){ struct kvm_run *kvm_run = svm->vcpu.run; if (!(svm->vcpu.guest_debug & (KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP | KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP)) && !svm->nmi_singlestep) { kvm_queue_exception(&svm->vcpu, DB_VECTOR); return 1; } if (svm->nmi_singlestep) { svm->nmi_singlestep = false; if (!(svm->vcpu.guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP)) svm->vmcb->save.rflags &= ~(X86_EFLAGS_TF | X86_EFLAGS_RF); update_db_intercept(&svm->vcpu); }
Quoted 4 lines
This code assumes that either the guest is debugging itself, or (
nmi_singlestep| guest debugging). However if the guest is debugging itself and takes an NMI, or if both host and guest are debugging the guest, things will go wrong.
I know.
Quoted 6 lines
So we need an
rflags_guest_owned_bits, usually set to -1ULL, but sometimes (NMI, host debugging) clearingEFLAGS_TF. When we do that, we need to intercept instructions that influence RFLAGS.TF (POPF, IRET, INTn) and emulate them. Otherwise, the guest can disable tracing which was enabled on behalf of the host.
I was still waiting on some smart idea from AMD how to properly implement NMIs without having to fully emulate IRET. Probably there is no alternative...
Quoted 3 lines
We also need to drop the 'return 1' on the top of the function to allow both guest and host tracing.
Support for host and guest-initiated tracing at the same time would be nice, but I would not spend to much effort on this corner case of the corner cases. If it happens to fall off from the NMI fix, OK. But otherwise let the host rule TF if it wants to.
Quoted 3 lines
On Intel, the situation is harder. We can't trap POPF or IRET. What we can do, is use the Monitor Trap Flag on hosts that have it.
Setting TF before POPF and IRET should give us at least the chance to provide host-overrules-guest tracing support. Adding monitor trap support would be nice. It would allow more things actually, but it may then require some additional knob in the user/kernel interface to control the mode (MTF steps into exceptions/interrupts, TF not).
Quoted 5 lines
Comments? Perhaps I missed something. Maybe I'll try writing a test case to prove the brokenness, it's fashionable these days.
Jan, as this is your code, are you interested in doing this?
I'm not very keen on writing complex and error-prone opcode emulations, but in principle resolving the AMD issue is on my long to-do list - with moderate prio though.
Cheers from Lancaster County PA,
Jan
Quoted 10 lines · Jan Kiszka
Quoted 7 lines
So we need an
rflags_guest_owned_bits, usually set to -1ULL, but sometimes (NMI, host debugging) clearingEFLAGS_TF. When we do that, we need to intercept instructions that influence RFLAGS.TF (POPF, IRET, INTn) and emulate them. Otherwise, the guest can disable tracing which was enabled on behalf of the host.I was still waiting on some smart idea from AMD how to properly implement NMIs without having to fully emulate IRET. Probably there is no alternative...
Well, there's the existing singlestep implementation, it just needs to be fixed not to assume the host has exclusive ownership of TF. It's probably faster than emulation, and certainly more accurate.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
We also need to drop the 'return 1' on the top of the function to allow both guest and host tracing.
Support for host and guest-initiated tracing at the same time would be nice, but I would not spend to much effort on this corner case of the corner cases. If it happens to fall off from the NMI fix, OK. But otherwise let the host rule TF if it wants to.
Taking an NMI while the guest is tracing itself is not a corner case. I agree about simulataneous debugging.
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 2 lines
On Intel, the situation is harder. We can't trap POPF or IRET. What we can do, is use the Monitor Trap Flag on hosts that have it.
Actually, I think a POPF or IRET that disables TF still takes a last trap? If so it's workable.
Quoted 5 lines
Setting TF before POPF and IRET should give us at least the chance to provide host-overrules-guest tracing support. Adding monitor trap support would be nice. It would allow more things actually, but it may then require some additional knob in the user/kernel interface to control the mode (MTF steps into exceptions/interrupts, TF not).
There's also branch trace in debugctlmsr, that allows you to quickly step out of a function.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Comments? Perhaps I missed something. Maybe I'll try writing a test case to prove the brokenness, it's fashionable these days.
Jan, as this is your code, are you interested in doing this?
I'm not very keen on writing complex and error-prone opcode emulations, but in principle resolving the AMD issue is on my long to-do list - with moderate prio though.
Definitely all this code has to be accompanied by test cases.
Signature · 2 lines
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.