linux-kernel - Re: Random guest crashes since 5c34d002dcc7 ("virtio_pci: use shared interrupts for virtqueues")

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: <20170329231738-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 23:19:16 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        rjones@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Random guest crashes since 5c34d002dcc7 ("virtio_pci: use shared
 interrupts for virtqueues")

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:23:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:18 +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> 
> > BTW, WRT RT woes with $subject, I tried booting a generic kernel with
> > threadirqs, and bingo, same deal, just a bit more painful than for RT,
> > where there's no watchdog moaning accompanying the (preemptible) spin.
> 
> BTW++: the last hunk of this bandaid may be a bug fix.  With only the
> first two, box tried to use uninitialized stuff on hibernate, went
> boom.  Looks like that may be possible without help from me.
> 
> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> @@ -2058,7 +2058,7 @@ static int virtcons_probe(struct virtio_
>  	portdev->max_nr_ports = 1;
>  
>  	/* Don't test MULTIPORT at all if we're rproc: not a valid feature! */
> -	if (!is_rproc_serial(vdev) &&
> +	if (!is_rproc_serial(vdev) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IRQ_FORCED_THREADING) &&
>  	    virtio_cread_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_MULTIPORT,
>  				 struct virtio_console_config, max_nr_ports,
>  				 &portdev->max_nr_ports) == 0) {
> @@ -2179,7 +2179,9 @@ static struct virtio_device_id id_table[
>  
>  static unsigned int features[] = {
>  	VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_SIZE,
> +#ifndef CONFIG_IRQ_FORCED_THREADING
>  	VIRTIO_CONSOLE_F_MULTIPORT,
> +#endif
>  };

These look kind of questionable.
Is this part needed?

>  static struct virtio_device_id rproc_serial_id_table[] = {
> @@ -2202,14 +2204,16 @@ static int virtcons_freeze(struct virtio
>  
>  	vdev->config->reset(vdev);
>  
> -	virtqueue_disable_cb(portdev->c_ivq);
> +	if (use_multiport(portdev))
> +		virtqueue_disable_cb(portdev->c_ivq);
>  	cancel_work_sync(&portdev->control_work);
>  	cancel_work_sync(&portdev->config_work);
>  	/*
>  	 * Once more: if control_work_handler() was running, it would
>  	 * enable the cb as the last step.
>  	 */
> -	virtqueue_disable_cb(portdev->c_ivq);
> +	if (use_multiport(portdev))
> +		virtqueue_disable_cb(portdev->c_ivq);
>  	remove_controlq_data(portdev);
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(port, &portdev->ports, list) {

This looks real. No idea why would interrupt sharing
trigger anything like this but go figure.
Can you pls submit this separately with
a signature?

-- 
MST