linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] kvm: Add resampling irqfds for level triggered interrupts

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20120919184818.GB312@redhat.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2012 21:48:18 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, gleb@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 2/2] kvm: Add resampling irqfds for level triggered
 interrupts

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 12:23:13PM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 11:59 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 09/18/2012 06:16 AM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > @@ -92,6 +156,43 @@ irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
> > >  	 */
> > >  	flush_work_sync(&irqfd->inject);
> > >  
> > > +	if (irqfd->resampler) {
> > > +		struct _irqfd_resampler *resampler = irqfd->resampler;
> > > +		struct kvm *kvm = resampler->kvm;
> > > +
> > > +		mutex_lock(&kvm->irq_lock);
> > > +		spin_lock_irq(&irqfd->kvm->irqfds.lock);
> > > +
> > > +		list_del_rcu(&irqfd->resampler_list);
> > > +
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * On removal of the last irqfd in the resampler list,
> > > +		 * remove the resampler and unregister the irq ack
> > > +		 * notifier.  It's possible to race the ack of the final
> > > +		 * injection here, so manually de-assert the gsi to avoid
> > > +		 * leaving an unmanaged, asserted interrupt line.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (list_empty(&resampler->irqfds)) {
> > > +			list_del(&resampler->list);
> > > +			__kvm_unregister_irq_ack_notifier(kvm,
> > > +							  &resampler->notifier);
> > > +			kvm_set_irq(kvm, KVM_IRQFD_RESAMPLE_IRQ_SOURCE_ID,
> > > +				    resampler->notifier.gsi, 0);
> > > +			kfree(resampler);
> > 
> > Is this rcu safe?
> 
> No it's not and unfortunately this also points out another race in
> trying to use a single source ID...
> 
> > > +		}
> > > +
> > > +		spin_unlock_irq(&irqfd->kvm->irqfds.lock);
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&kvm->irq_lock);
> > > +
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Both list_del_rcu & __kvm_unregister_irq_ack_notifier
> > > +		 * require an rcu grace period/
> > > +		 */
> > > +		synchronize_rcu();
> 
> The kfree can't be done until here and we also have to assume that ack
> notifies are firing until here.  That means that between the
> mutex_unlock and the end of synchronize_rcu another resampling irqfd can
> be registered, post an interrupt, and have it de-asserted by the wrong
> resampler.  Maybe the conversion wasn't as clean as I first thought :(
> > Quite ugly to expose the internals this way.
> 
> Yep.  I don't know how to clean it up though; between all the different
> rcu operations and locks, it's a mess.  Thanks,
> 
> Alex

Add another mutex for the resamplers, keep it during the whole
operation? This also removes the need for exposing the internals.
If you do pls document lock nesting rules.

-- 
MST
--
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/