linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.19 144/175] KVM: s390: forward hrtimer if guest ckc not pending yet

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]

Date:	Tue,  3 Mar 2015 22:15:22 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.19 144/175] KVM: s390: forward hrtimer if guest ckc not pending yet

3.19-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>

commit 2d00f759427bb3ed963b60f570830e9eca7e1c69 upstream.

Patch 0759d0681cae ("KVM: s390: cleanup handle_wait by reusing
kvm_vcpu_block") changed the way pending guest clock comparator
interrupts are detected. It was assumed that as soon as the hrtimer
wakes up, the condition for the guest ckc is satisfied.

This is however only true as long as adjclock() doesn't speed
up the monotonic clock. Reason is that the hrtimer is based on
CLOCK_MONOTONIC, the guest clock comparator detection is based
on the raw TOD clock. If CLOCK_MONOTONIC runs faster than the
TOD clock, the hrtimer wakes the target VCPU up too early and
the target VCPU will not detect any pending interrupts, therefore
going back to sleep. It will never be woken up again because the
hrtimer has finished. The VCPU is stuck.

As a quick fix, we have to forward the hrtimer until the guest
clock comparator is really due, to guarantee properly timed wake
ups.

As the hrtimer callback might be triggered on another cpu, we
have to make sure that the timer is really stopped and not currently
executing the callback on another cpu. This can happen if the vcpu
thread is scheduled onto another physical cpu, but the timer base
is not migrated. So lets use hrtimer_cancel instead of try_to_cancel.

A proper fix might be to introduce a RAW based hrtimer.

Reported-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <dahi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c |   14 ++++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
@@ -820,7 +820,7 @@ no_timer:
 	__unset_cpu_idle(vcpu);
 	vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);

-	hrtimer_try_to_cancel(&vcpu->arch.ckc_timer);
+	hrtimer_cancel(&vcpu->arch.ckc_timer);
 	return 0;
 }

@@ -840,10 +840,20 @@ void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcp
 enum hrtimer_restart kvm_s390_idle_wakeup(struct hrtimer *timer)
 {
 	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+	u64 now, sltime;

 	vcpu = container_of(timer, struct kvm_vcpu, arch.ckc_timer);
-	kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(vcpu);
+	now = get_tod_clock_fast() + vcpu->arch.sie_block->epoch;
+	sltime = tod_to_ns(vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc - now);

+	/*
+	 * If the monotonic clock runs faster than the tod clock we might be
+	 * woken up too early and have to go back to sleep to avoid deadlocks.
+	 */
+	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc > now &&
+	    hrtimer_forward_now(timer, ns_to_ktime(sltime)))
+		return HRTIMER_RESTART;
+	kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(vcpu);
 	return HRTIMER_NORESTART;
 }

--
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/