Re: [PATCH v4 16/48] KVM: arm64: gic-v5: Request doorbells when VPEs enter WFI

Sascha Bischoff <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,dev.linux.lists.sashiko-reviews,org.kernel.vger.kvm
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Fri, 2026-07-24 at 11:41 +0000, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential
> issue(s) to consider:
> - [High] Stale `db_fired` state causes an infinite loop bypassing WFI
> sleep, pegging the host CPU to 100%.
> - [High] Incorrect GICv5 doorbell priority mask (DBPM) calculation
> drops preempting interrupts and vNMIs.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [16]: [PATCH v4 16/48] KVM: arm64: gic-v5: Request
> doorbells when VPEs enter WFI ---
> commit 4c69e1e71f915cfc6ba78559fe449983dee20dd6
> Author: Sascha Bischoff <[email protected]>
> 
> KVM: arm64: gic-v5: Request doorbells when VPEs enter WFI
> 
> This commit requests a GICv5 VPE doorbell when a vcpu enters WFI,
> allowing 
> KVM to be notified when an SPI or LPI becomes pending. It also
> calculates 
> a doorbell priority mask (DBPM) from the virtual priority state to
> avoid 
> waking the guest for masked interrupts.
> 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v5.c
> > b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v5.c
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v5.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-v5.c
> [ ... ]
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Request a doorbell *unless* the priority is 0,
> > indicating
> > +		 * that no interrupt can wake the CPU up.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (priority_mask) {
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Does skipping the doorbell request when the priority is 0 break vNMI
> wakeups?
> 
> Architectural semantics dictate that vNMIs have superpriority and
> must wake
> a vCPU even when the running priority is 0.

KVM does not expose FEAT_NMI to a guest, so this is not an issue.

> 
> > +			int db_irq = vgic_v5_vpe_db(vcpu);
> > +			struct irq_data *d =
> > irq_get_irq_data(db_irq);
> > +			const struct cpumask *aff =
> > irq_data_get_effective_affinity_mask(d);
> > +			int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > +
> > +			dbpm = priority_mask - 1;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Does subtracting 1 from the priority mask drop valid preempting
> interrupts?

No. We discussed this last time. This is correct for GICv5, but
wouldn't be for GICv3.

> 
> The hardware doorbell condition triggers when the pending priority is
> less
> than the threshold. If the highest active priority is 5, the vCPU
> should
> be woken by any interrupt with a priority less than 5, for example,
> 4.
> 
> If the priority mask is 5, this code sets the DBPM to 4. The hardware
> condition then becomes priority < 4. An interrupt with priority 4
> will
> not signal the doorbell, despite having a higher priority than the
> active
> interrupt, causing missed wakeups and guest hangs.
> 
> > +			cpu_if->vgic_contextr =
> > FIELD_PREP(ICH_CONTEXTR_EL2_DB, 1) |
> > +						FIELD_PREP(ICH_CON
> > TEXTR_EL2_DBPM, dbpm);
> [ ... ]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1227,8 +1227,12 @@ int kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(struct
> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  	struct vgic_vmcr vmcr;
> >  
> > -	if (vgic_is_v5(vcpu->kvm))
> > +	if (vgic_is_v5(vcpu->kvm)) {
> > +		if (READ_ONCE(vcpu-
> > >arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v5.gicv5_vpe.db_fired))
> > +			return true;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Can a stale db_fired state cause an infinite loop bypassing WFI
> sleep?
> 
> The db_fired flag is cleared only in __vgic_v5_make_non_resident(),
> which
> executes during schedule-out.
> 
> If a doorbell fires, db_fired becomes true and the vCPU wakes up to
> enter
> the guest. When the vCPU subsequently re-enters WFI without a
> schedule-out,
> kvm_vcpu_block() evaluates kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(). Because
> db_fired
> remains true, this instantly returns without sleeping.
> 
> This leaves the vCPU in an infinite loop returning from WFI and
> pegging
> the host CPU at 100% until a host timer tick forces preemption.

Entering WFI (when it is trapped to KVM) results in a vgic_v5_put()
which makes the VPE non-resident. At this point, it would be cleared.

In the event that we sleep in the guest, then we indeed won't call
vgic_v5_put() until we schedule out - but that is by design. We've
already chosen to sleep in the guest context at this point, but will
return to the host on a scheduler tick, at which point we take whatever
action is appropriate, such as making the VPE non-resident.

> 
> > +
> >  		return vgic_v5_has_pending_ppi(vcpu);
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	if (!vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic.enabled)
> >  		return false;
> 

Thanks,
Sascha
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.