linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt handling

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: <52621c50-d367-26a1-89da-36cd158523e0@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:18:20 +0100
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        Shanker Donthineni <shankerd@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Shameerali Kolothum Thodi 
        <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 51/59] KVM: arm/arm64: GICv4: Add doorbell interrupt
 handling

On 28/08/17 19:18, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:44:04AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 31/07/17 18:26, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> When a vPE is not running, a VLPI being made pending results in a
>>> doorbell interrupt being delivered. Let's handle this interrupt
>>> and update the pending_last flag that indicates that VLPIs are
>>> pending. The corresponding vcpu is also kicked into action.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>>> ---
>>>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>>> index 534d3051a078..6af3cde6d7d4 100644
>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>>> @@ -21,6 +21,19 @@
>>>  
>>>  #include "vgic.h"
>>>  
>>> +static irqreturn_t vgic_v4_doorbell_handler(int irq, void *info)
>>> +{
>>> +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = info;
>>> +
>>> +	if (!kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(vcpu)) {
>>> +		vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.pending_last = true;
>>> +		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu);
>>> +		kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
>>> +	}
>>
>> This code is so obviously broken that I completely overlooked it.
>>
>> If we have take a doorbell interrupt, then it means nothing was
>> otherwise pending (because we'd have been kicked out of the blocking
>> state, and will have masked the doorbell). So checking for pending
>> interrupts is pointless.
>>
>> Furthermore, calling kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq() takes the ap_list
>> lock. If we take a doorbell interrupt while injecting a virtual
>> interrupt (from userspace, for example) on the same CPU, we end-up
>> in deadlock land. This would be solved by Christoffer's latest
>> crop of timer patches, but there is no point getting there the first
>> place.
>>
>> The patchlet below solves it:
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> index 15feb1151797..48e4d6ebeaa8 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v4.c
>> @@ -94,11 +94,9 @@ static irqreturn_t vgic_v4_doorbell_handler(int irq, void *info)
>>  {
>>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = info;
>>  
>> -	if (!kvm_vgic_vcpu_pending_irq(vcpu)) {
>> -		vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.pending_last = true;
>> -		kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu);
>> -		kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
>> -	}
>> +	vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.vgic_v3.its_vpe.pending_last = true;
>> +	kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING, vcpu);
>> +	kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> 
> I don't think you need the request and kick, because if you're getting
> this doorbell, doesn't that also mean that the VCPU is not running in
> the guest and you simply need to make sure the VCPU thread gets
> scheduled again, so you could call kvm_vcpu_wake_up() instead.
> 
> Unless the request is there to ensure proper memory barriers around
> setting pending_last?

We definitely need some form of barrier here (the write needs to be
observed on the CPU we're waking up on), and I wanted to model this in a
similar way to our injection path (where we do have the make_request +
kick pattern).

After all, we really have an interrupt pending that deserves attention.
Is there any reason why we'd want to model it differently from the rest
of the injection path?

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...