| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110921210838.GA1016@phenom.oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 17:08:38 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen/pciback: Use mutexes when working
with Xenbus state transitions.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:01:56PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 19.09.11 at 12:43, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 16.09.11 at 21:06, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The caller that orchestrates the state changes is xenwatch_thread
> >> and it takes a mutex. In our processing of Xenbus states we can take
> >> the luxery of going to sleep on a mutex, so lets do that and
> >
> > This is only the direct conversion of existing spinlock accesses in
> > xenbus.c. However, in the course of converting from the legacy
> > implementation you stripped a couple more (in xen_pcibk_attach(),
> > xen_pcibk_reconfigure(), and xen_pcibk_setup_backend()), and
>
> Actually, xen_pcibk_attach() has its lock taken in xen_pcibk_do_attach(),
> so no change needed there.
>
> In xen_pcibk_reconfigure() and xen_pcibk_setup_backend() the locking
> may be redundant with the one in passthrough.c/vpci.c - is that the
> basis upon which you removed the locks taken there?
No. I believe the reason was much simpler.. it was b/c of this patch (see below).
But for the life of me I don't recall what deadlock we could hit.
I think the better choice will be to restore the call-sites of these
spinlocks but use mutex instead.
So let me post two patches - one for xenbus.c and one for vpci.c to
complement "xen/pciback: use mutex rather than spinlock in passthrough backend"
you posted and I queued up.
commit 3a8d1841ae2dd32452b79284da03eda596f30827
Author: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Date: Fri Jul 23 14:35:47 2010 -0400
xen/pciback: Redo spinlock usage.
We were using coarse spinlocks that could end up with a deadlock.
This patch fixes that and makes the spinlocks much more fine-grained.
We also drop be->watchding state spinlocks as they are already
guarded by the xenwatch_thread against multiple customers.
Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
diff --git a/drivers/xen/pciback/xenbus.c b/drivers/xen/pciback/xenbus.c
index d448bf5..993b659 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/pciback/xenbus.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/pciback/xenbus.c
@@ -54,23 +54,29 @@ static void pciback_disconnect(struct pciback_device *pdev)
unbind_from_irqhandler(pdev->evtchn_irq, pdev);
pdev->evtchn_irq = INVALID_EVTCHN_IRQ;
}
+ spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
/* If the driver domain started an op, make sure we complete it
* before releasing the shared memory */
+
+ /* Note, the workqueue does not use spinlocks at all.*/
flush_workqueue(pciback_wq);
+ spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
if (pdev->sh_info != NULL) {
xenbus_unmap_ring_vfree(pdev->xdev, pdev->sh_info);
pdev->sh_info = NULL;
}
-
spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
+
}
static void free_pdev(struct pciback_device *pdev)
{
- if (pdev->be_watching)
+ if (pdev->be_watching) {
unregister_xenbus_watch(&pdev->be_watch);
+ pdev->be_watching = 0;
+ }
pciback_disconnect(pdev);
@@ -98,7 +104,10 @@ static int pciback_do_attach(struct pciback_device *pdev, int gnt_ref,
"Error mapping other domain page in ours.");
goto out;
}
+
+ spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
pdev->sh_info = vaddr;
+ spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
err = bind_interdomain_evtchn_to_irqhandler(
pdev->xdev->otherend_id, remote_evtchn, pciback_handle_event,
@@ -108,7 +117,10 @@ static int pciback_do_attach(struct pciback_device *pdev, int gnt_ref,
"Error binding event channel to IRQ");
goto out;
}
+
+ spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
pdev->evtchn_irq = err;
+ spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
err = 0;
dev_dbg(&pdev->xdev->dev, "Attached!\n");
@@ -122,7 +134,6 @@ static int pciback_attach(struct pciback_device *pdev)
int gnt_ref, remote_evtchn;
char *magic = NULL;
- spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
/* Make sure we only do this setup once */
if (xenbus_read_driver_state(pdev->xdev->nodename) !=
@@ -168,7 +179,6 @@ static int pciback_attach(struct pciback_device *pdev)
dev_dbg(&pdev->xdev->dev, "Connected? %d\n", err);
out:
- spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
kfree(magic);
@@ -340,7 +350,6 @@ static int pciback_reconfigure(struct pciback_device *pdev)
char state_str[64];
char dev_str[64];
- spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
dev_dbg(&pdev->xdev->dev, "Reconfiguring device ...\n");
@@ -481,8 +490,6 @@ static int pciback_reconfigure(struct pciback_device *pdev)
}
out:
- spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -539,8 +546,6 @@ static int pciback_setup_backend(struct pciback_device *pdev)
char dev_str[64];
char state_str[64];
- spin_lock(&pdev->dev_lock);
-
/* It's possible we could get the call to setup twice, so make sure
* we're not already connected.
*/
@@ -621,8 +626,6 @@ static int pciback_setup_backend(struct pciback_device *pdev)
"Error switching to initialised state!");
out:
- spin_unlock(&pdev->dev_lock);
-
if (!err)
/* see if pcifront is already configured (if not, we'll wait) */
pciback_attach(pdev);
@@ -669,6 +672,7 @@ static int pciback_xenbus_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
pciback_be_watch);
if (err)
goto out;
+
pdev->be_watching = 1;
/* We need to force a call to our callback here in case
@@ -708,8 +712,8 @@ int __init pciback_xenbus_register(void)
{
pciback_wq = create_workqueue("pciback_workqueue");
if (!pciback_wq) {
- printk(KERN_ERR "pciback_xenbus_register: create"
- "pciback_workqueue failed\n");
+ printk(KERN_ERR "%s: create"
+ "pciback_workqueue failed\n",__FUNCTION__);
return -EFAULT;
}
return xenbus_register_backend(&xenbus_pciback_driver);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists