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: <51C7F2FE.3090803@oracle.com>
Date:	Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:19:26 +0800
From:	Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
To:	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
CC:	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
	"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	Feng Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>,
	Yuval Shaia <yuval.shaia@...cle.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Chien Yen <chien.yen@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: reuse the same pirq allocated when driver
 load first time


On 2013-06-20 22:21, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>> On 2013-06-05 20:50, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2013, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
>>>> Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>     
>>>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>       
>>>> Looking at the hypervisor code I couldn't see anything obviously wrong.
>>>>           
>>>> I think the culprit is "physdev_unmap_pirq":
>>>>
>>>>      if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
>>>>       {
>>>>           spin_lock(&d->event_lock);
>>>>           gdprintk(XENLOG_WARNING,"d%d, pirq: %d is %x %s, irq: %d\n",
>>>>               d->domain_id, pirq, domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq),
>>>>               domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) == IRQ_UNBOUND ? "unbound" :
>>>> "",
>>>>               domain_pirq_to_irq(d, pirq));
>>>>                                                                                            if
>>>> ( domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, pirq) != IRQ_UNBOUND )
>>>>               ret = unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq(d, pirq);
>>>>           spin_unlock(&d->event_lock);
>>>>           if ( domid == DOMID_SELF || ret )
>>>>               goto free_domain;
>>>>
>>>> It always tells me unbound:
>>>>
>>>> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 54 is ffffffff
>>>> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
>>>> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 53 is ffffffff
>>>> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
>>>> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 52 is ffffffff
>>>> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
>>>> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 51 is ffffffff
>>>> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
>>>> (XEN) physdev.c:237:d14 14, pirq: 50 is ffffffff
>>>> (XEN) irq.c:1873:d14 14, nr_pirqs: 56
>>>> (a bit older debug code, so the 'unbound' does not show up here).
>>>>
>>>> Which means that the call to unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq does not happen.
>>>> The checks in unmap_domain_pirq_emuirq also look to be depend
>>>> on the code being IRQ_UNBOUND.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, all of that code looks to only clear things when
>>>> they are !IRQ_UNBOUND.
>>>>
>>>> But the other logic (IRQ_UNBOUND) looks to be missing a removal
>>>> in the radix tree:
>>>>
>>>>     if ( emuirq != IRQ_PT )
>>>>           radix_tree_delete(&d->arch.hvm_domain.emuirq_pirq, emuirq);
>>>>                                                                           And
>>>> I think that is what is causing the leak - the radix tree
>>>> needs to be pruned? Or perhaps the allocate_pirq should check
>>>> the radix tree for IRQ_UNBOUND ones and re-use them?
>>>>         
>>>> I think that you are looking in the wrong place.
>>>> The issue is that QEMU doesn't call pt_msi_disable in
>>>> pt_msgctrl_reg_write if (!val & PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE).
>>>>
>>>> The code above is correct as is because it is trying to handle emulated
>>>> IRQs and MSIs, not real passthrough MSIs. They latter are not added to
>>>> that radix tree, see physdev_hvm_map_pirq and physdev_map_pirq.
>>>>       
>>>>
>>>> This patch fixes the issue, I have only tested MSI (MSI-X completely
>>>> untested).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/hw/pass-through.c b/hw/pass-through.c
>>>> index 304c438..079e465 100644
>>>> --- a/hw/pass-through.c
>>>> +++ b/hw/pass-through.c
>>>> @@ -3866,7 +3866,11 @@ static int pt_msgctrl_reg_write(struct pt_dev
>>>> *ptdev,
>>>>            ptdev->msi->flags |= PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE;
>>>>        }
>>>>        else
>>>> -        ptdev->msi->flags &= ~PCI_MSI_FLAGS_ENABLE;
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        if (ptdev->msi->flags & PT_MSI_MAPPED) {
>>>> +            pt_msi_disable(ptdev);
>>>> +        }
>>>> +    }
>>>>          /* pass through MSI_ENABLE bit when no MSI-INTx translation */
>>>>        if (!ptdev->msi_trans_en) {
>>>> @@ -4013,6 +4017,8 @@ static int pt_msixctrl_reg_write(struct pt_dev
>>>> *ptdev,
>>>>                pt_disable_msi_translate(ptdev);
>>>>            }
>>>>            pt_msix_update(ptdev);
>>>> +    } else if (!(*value & PCI_MSIX_ENABLE) && ptdev->msix->enabled) {
>>>> +        pt_msix_delete(ptdev);
>>>>     
>>>> Hi Stefano,
>>>> I made a test with this patch, os reboot when driver reload. If use
>>>> pt_msix_disable
>>>> instead of pt_msix_delete, driver could be reloaded.
>>>> But I still see some error in qemu.log and xen console. Seems four IRQs
>>>> are not freed
>>>> when unmap.
>>>> --------------first load---------------------------
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: pt_msix_update_one requested pirq = 103
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 0 with pirq 67 gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: pt_msix_update_one requested pirq = 102
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 1 with pirq 66 gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: pt_msix_update_one requested pirq = 101
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 2 with pirq 65 gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: pt_msix_update_one requested pirq = 100
>>>> pt_msix_update_one: Update msix entry 3 with pirq 64 gvec 0
>>>> ------------- first unload---------------------------
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unbind msix with pirq 67, gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unmap msix with pirq 67
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Error: Unmapping of MSI-X failed. [00:04.0]
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unbind msix with pirq 66, gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unmap msix with pirq 66
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Error: Unmapping of MSI-X failed. [00:04.0]
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unbind msix with pirq 65, gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unmap msix with pirq 65
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Error: Unmapping of MSI-X failed. [00:04.0]
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unbind msix with pirq 64, gvec 0
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Unmap msix with pirq 64
>>>> pt_msix_disable: Error: Unmapping of MSI-X failed. [00:04.0]
>>> Can you add some printks in Xen (the hypercall name is
>>> PHYSDEVOP_unmap_pirq) to figure out exactly why they are failing?
>> Did some test, domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, unmap->pirq) = IRQ_UNBOUND in
>> physdev_unmap_pirq.
> That means that Linux didn't call irq_enable on the MSI-X in question:
>
> irq_enable -> __startup_pirq -> EVTCHNOP_bind_pirq
>
> EVTCHNOP_bind_pirq is implemented by evtchn_bind_pirq in Xen and calls
> map_domain_emuirq_pirq, so domain_pirq_to_emuirq(d, unmap->pirq) should
> be IRQ_PT.
>
> I don't know if that's a normal condition, but in any case it should
> not create any problems to physdev_unmap_pirq, in fact the folloing
> check:
>
>      if ( domid == DOMID_SELF || ret )
>              goto free_domain;
>
> should fail so Xen should continue and execute unmap_domain_pirq. That's
> what we want.
 From linux side, request_irq->  request_threaded_irq-> __setup_irq->  
irq_startup->  startup_pirq-> EVTCHNOP_bind_pirq
If irq_enable isn't called, how does the driver receive interrupt, I did 
see four interrupts in /proc/interrupt and driver works ok.

Could you have a look if there is something wrong in xen side of 
clearing the mapping?

zduan

--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ