| 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: <20120717163649.GA12304@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:36:49 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: avi@...hat.com, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jan.kiszka@...mens.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] kvm: Create kvm_clear_irq()
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 10:08:21AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:51:41AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 18:36 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 09:20:11AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 17:53 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 08:21:51AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 17:08 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 07:56:09AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 13:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:34:03PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > This is an alternative to kvm_set_irq(,,,0) which returns the previous
> > > > > > > > > > > assertion state of the interrupt and does nothing if it isn't changed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
> > > > > > > > > > > virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 81 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > > > > > > index a7661c0..6c168f1 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -219,6 +219,8 @@ struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry {
> > > > > > > > > > > u32 type;
> > > > > > > > > > > int (*set)(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> > > > > > > > > > > struct kvm *kvm, int irq_source_id, int level);
> > > > > > > > > > > + int (*clear)(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct kvm *kvm, int irq_source_id);
> > > > > > > > > > > union {
> > > > > > > > > > > struct {
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned irqchip;
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -629,6 +631,7 @@ void kvm_get_intr_delivery_bitmask(struct kvm_ioapic *ioapic,
> > > > > > > > > > > unsigned long *deliver_bitmask);
> > > > > > > > > > > #endif
> > > > > > > > > > > int kvm_set_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int irq_source_id, u32 irq, int level);
> > > > > > > > > > > +int kvm_clear_irq(struct kvm *kvm, int irq_source_id, u32 irq);
> > > > > > > > > > > int kvm_set_msi(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *irq_entry, struct kvm *kvm,
> > > > > > > > > > > int irq_source_id, int level);
> > > > > > > > > > > void kvm_notify_acked_irq(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned irqchip, unsigned pin);
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index 5afb431..76e8f22 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/virt/kvm/irq_comm.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -68,6 +68,42 @@ static int kvm_set_ioapic_irq(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> > > > > > > > > > > return kvm_ioapic_set_irq(ioapic, e->irqchip.pin, level);
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > +static inline int kvm_clear_irq_line_state(unsigned long *irq_state,
> > > > > > > > > > > + int irq_source_id)
> > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > + return !!test_and_clear_bit(irq_source_id, irq_state);
> > > > > > > > > > > +}
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +static int kvm_clear_pic_irq(struct kvm_kernel_irq_routing_entry *e,
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct kvm *kvm, int irq_source_id)
> > > > > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> > > > > > > > > > > + struct kvm_pic *pic = pic_irqchip(kvm);
> > > > > > > > > > > + int level = kvm_clear_irq_line_state(&pic->irq_states[e->irqchip.pin],
> > > > > > > > > > > + irq_source_id);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if (level)
> > > > > > > > > > > + kvm_pic_set_irq(pic, e->irqchip.pin,
> > > > > > > > > > > + !!pic->irq_states[e->irqchip.pin]);
> > > > > > > > > > > + return level;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think I begin to understand: if (level) checks it was previously set,
> > > > > > > > > > and then we clear if needed?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's actually very simple, if we change anything in irq_states, then
> > > > > > > > > update via the chip specific set_irq function.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I think it's worthwhile to rename
> > > > > > > > > > level to orig_level and rewrite as:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > if (orig_level && !pic->irq_states[e->irqchip.pin])
> > > > > > > > > > kvm_pic_set_irq(pic, e->irqchip.pin, 0);
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This both makes the logic clear without need for comments and
> > > > > > > > > > saves some cycles on pic in case nothing actually changed.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That may work, but it's not actually the same thing. kvm_set_irq(,,,0)
> > > > > > > > > will clear the bit and call kvm_pic_set_irq with the new irq_states
> > > > > > > > > value, whether it's 0 or 1. The optimization I make is to only call
> > > > > > > > > kvm_pic_set_irq if we've "changed" irq_states. You're taking that one
> > > > > > > > > step further to "changed and is now 0". I don't know if that's correct
> > > > > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If not then I don't understand. You clear a bit
> > > > > > > > in a word. You never change it to 1, do you?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Correct, but kvm_set_irq(,,,0) may call kvm_pic_set_irq(,,1) if other
> > > > > > > source IDs are still asserting the interrupt. Your proposal assumes
> > > > > > > that unless irq_states is also 0 we don't need to call kvm_pic_set_irq,
> > > > > > > and I don't know if that's correct.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well you are asked to clear some id and level was 1. So we know
> > > > > > interrupt was asserted. Either we clear it or we don't. No?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But this brings another question:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > static inline int kvm_irq_line_state(unsigned long *irq_state,
> > > > > > > > int irq_source_id, int level)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > /* Logical OR for level trig interrupt */
> > > > > > > > if (level)
> > > > > > > > set_bit(irq_source_id, irq_state);
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > clear_bit(irq_source_id, irq_state);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > > > above uses locked instructions
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > return !!(*irq_state);
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > above doesn't
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > why the insonsistency?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Note that set/clear_bit are not locked instructions,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On x86 they are:
> > > > > > static __always_inline void
> > > > > > set_bit(unsigned int nr, volatile unsigned long *addr)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > if (IS_IMMEDIATE(nr)) {
> > > > > > asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "orb %1,%0"
> > > > > > : CONST_MASK_ADDR(nr, addr)
> > > > > > : "iq" ((u8)CONST_MASK(nr))
> > > > > > : "memory");
> > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > asm volatile(LOCK_PREFIX "bts %1,%0"
> > > > > > : BITOP_ADDR(addr) : "Ir" (nr) : "memory");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > but atomic
> > > > > > > instructions and it could be argued that reading the value is also
> > > > > > > atomic. At least that was my guess when I stumbled across the same
> > > > > > > yesterday. IMHO, we're going off into the weeds again with these last
> > > > > > > two patches. It may be a valid optimization, but it really has no
> > > > > > > bearing on the meat of the series (and afaict, no significant
> > > > > > > performance difference either).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For me it's not a performance thing. IMO code is cleaner without this locking:
> > > > > > we add a lock but only use it in some cases, so the rules become really
> > > > > > complex.
> > > > >
> > > > > Seriously?
> > > > >
> > > > > spin_lock(&irqfd->source->lock);
> > > > > if (!irqfd->source->level_asserted) {
> > > > > kvm_set_irq(irqfd->kvm, irqfd->source->id, irqfd->gsi, 1);
> > > > > irqfd->source->level_asserted = true;
> > > > > }
> > > > > spin_unlock(&irqfd->source->lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > spin_lock(&eoifd->source->lock);
> > > > > if (eoifd->source->level_asserted) {
> > > > > kvm_set_irq(eoifd->kvm,
> > > > > eoifd->source->id, eoifd->notifier.gsi, 0);
> > > > > eoifd->source->level_asserted = false;
> > > > > eventfd_signal(eoifd->eventfd, 1);
> > > > > }
> > > > > spin_unlock(&eoifd->source->lock);
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Locking doesn't get much more straightforward than that
> > > >
> > > > Don't look at it in isolation. You are now calling kvm_set_irq
> > > > from under a spinlock. You are saying it is always safe but
> > > > this seems far from obvious. kvm_set_irq used to be
> > > > unsafe from an atomic context.
> > >
> > > Device assignment has been calling kvm_set_irq from atomic context for
> > > quite a long time.
> >
> > Only for MSI. That's an exception (and it's also a messy one).
>
> Nope, I see past code that used it for INTx as well.
While this looks like it will not crash, this scans all vcpus under a
spinlock. A problem for big VMs.
Again, yes we have such uses now but we are looking for ways
to fix them and not be adding more.
> > > > > > And current code looks buggy if yes we need to fix it somehow.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which to me seems to indicate this should be handled as a separate
> > > > > effort.
> > > >
> > > > A separate patchset, sure. But likely a prerequisite: we still need to
> > > > look at all the code. Let's not copy bugs, need to fix them.
> > >
> > > This looks tangential to me unless you can come up with an actual reason
> > > the above spinlock usage is incorrect or insufficient.
> >
> > You copy the same pattern that seems racy. So you double the
> > amount of code that woul need to be fixed.
>
>
> _Seems_ racy, or _is_ racy? Please identify the race.
--
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