Message-ID: <3ab0fe44-9290-8c29-5e4c-2599ba0de373@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 18 May 2018 01:56:50 +0530
From:   Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
CC:     Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dong Jia Shi <bjsdjshi@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Halil Pasic" <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vfio/mdev: Check globally for duplicate devices



On 5/17/2018 9:50 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 21:25:22 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 5/17/2018 1:39 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2018 21:30:19 -0600
>>> Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> When we create an mdev device, we check for duplicates against the
>>>> parent device and return -EEXIST if found, but the mdev device
>>>> namespace is global since we'll link all devices from the bus.  We do
>>>> catch this later in sysfs_do_create_link_sd() to return -EEXIST, but
>>>> with it comes a kernel warning and stack trace for trying to create
>>>> duplicate sysfs links, which makes it an undesirable response.
>>>>
>>>> Therefore we should really be looking for duplicates across all mdev
>>>> parent devices, or as implemented here, against our mdev device list.
>>>> Using mdev_list to prevent duplicates means that we can remove
>>>> mdev_parent.lock, but in order not to serialize mdev device creation
>>>> and removal globally, we add mdev_device.active which allows UUIDs to
>>>> be reserved such that we can drop the mdev_list_lock before the mdev
>>>> device is fully in place.
>>>>
>>>> NB. there was never intended to be any serialization guarantee
>>>> provided by the mdev core with respect to creation and removal of mdev
>>>> devices, mdev_parent.lock provided this only as a side-effect of the
>>>> implementation for locking the namespace per parent.  That
>>>> serialization is now removed.  
>>>   
>>
>> mdev_parent.lock is to serialize create and remove of that mdev device,
>> that handles race condition that Cornelia mentioned below.
> 
> Previously it was stated:
> 
> On Thu, 17 May 2018 01:01:40 +0530
> Kirti Wankhede <kwankhede@...dia.com> wrote:
>> Here lock is not for create/remove routines of vendor driver, its about
>> mdev device creation and device registration, which is a common code
>> path, and so is part of mdev core module.
> 
> So the race condition was handled previously, but as a side-effect of
> protecting the namespace, aiui.  I'm trying to state above that the
> serialization of create/remove was never intended as a guarantee
> provided to mdev vendor drivers.  I don't see that there's a need to
> protect "mdev device creation and device registration" beyond conflicts
> in the UUID namespace, which is done here.  Are there others?
> 

Sorry not being elaborative in my earlier response to

> If we can
> show that vendor drivers handle the create/remove paths themselves,
> perhaps we can refine the locking granularity.

mdev_device_create() function does :
- create mdev device
- register device
- call vendor driver->create
- create sysfs files.

mdev_device_remove() removes sysfs files, unregister device and delete
device.

There is common code in mdev_device_create() and mdev_device_remove()
independent of what vendor driver does in its create()/remove()
callback. Moving this code to each vendor driver to handle create/remove
themselves doesn't make sense to me.

mdev_parent.lock here does take care of race conditions that could occur
during mdev device creation and deletion in this common code path.

What is the urge to remove mdev_parent.lock if that handles all race
conditions without bothering user to handle -EAGAIN?

Thanks,
Kirti


>>> This is probably fine; but I noted that documentation on the locking
>>> conventions and serialization guarantees for mdev is a bit sparse, and
>>> this topic also came up during the vfio-ap review.
>>>
>>> We probably want to add some more concrete documentation; would the
>>> kernel doc for the _ops or vfio-mediated-device.txt be a better place
>>> for that?
> 
> I'll look to see where we can add a note withing that file, I suspect
> that's the right place to put it.
> 
>>> [Dong Jia, Halil: Can you please take a look whether vfio-ccw is really
>>> ok? I don't think we open up any new races, but I'd appreciate a second
>>> or third opinion.]
>>>   
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> v3: Rework locking and add a field to mdev_device so we can track
>>>>     completed instances vs those added to reserve the namespace.
>>>>
>>>>  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c    |   94 +++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>>  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_private.h |    2 -
>>>>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> index 126991046eb7..55ea9d34ec69 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
>>>> @@ -66,34 +66,6 @@ uuid_le mdev_uuid(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>>>>  }
>>>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdev_uuid);
>>>>  
>>>> -static int _find_mdev_device(struct device *dev, void *data)
>>>> -{
>>>> -	struct mdev_device *mdev;
>>>> -
>>>> -	if (!dev_is_mdev(dev))
>>>> -		return 0;
>>>> -
>>>> -	mdev = to_mdev_device(dev);
>>>> -
>>>> -	if (uuid_le_cmp(mdev->uuid, *(uuid_le *)data) == 0)
>>>> -		return 1;
>>>> -
>>>> -	return 0;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>> -static bool mdev_device_exist(struct mdev_parent *parent, uuid_le uuid)
>>>> -{
>>>> -	struct device *dev;
>>>> -
>>>> -	dev = device_find_child(parent->dev, &uuid, _find_mdev_device);
>>>> -	if (dev) {
>>>> -		put_device(dev);
>>>> -		return true;
>>>> -	}
>>>> -
>>>> -	return false;
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>>  /* Should be called holding parent_list_lock */
>>>>  static struct mdev_parent *__find_parent_device(struct device *dev)
>>>>  {
>>>> @@ -221,7 +193,6 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device *dev, const struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	kref_init(&parent->ref);
>>>> -	mutex_init(&parent->lock);
>>>>  
>>>>  	parent->dev = dev;
>>>>  	parent->ops = ops;
>>>> @@ -304,7 +275,7 @@ static void mdev_device_release(struct device *dev)
>>>>  int mdev_device_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct device *dev, uuid_le uuid)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	int ret;
>>>> -	struct mdev_device *mdev;
>>>> +	struct mdev_device *mdev, *tmp;
>>>>  	struct mdev_parent *parent;
>>>>  	struct mdev_type *type = to_mdev_type(kobj);
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -312,21 +283,26 @@ int mdev_device_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct device *dev, uuid_le uuid)
>>>>  	if (!parent)
>>>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>>>  
>>>> -	mutex_lock(&parent->lock);
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* Check for duplicate */
>>>> -	if (mdev_device_exist(parent, uuid)) {
>>>> -		ret = -EEXIST;
>>>> -		goto create_err;
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &mdev_list, next) {
>>>> +		if (!uuid_le_cmp(tmp->uuid, uuid)) {
>>>> +			mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +			return -EEXIST;
>>>> +		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>    
>>
>> mdev_put_parent(parent) missing before return.
>>
>>
>>>>  	mdev = kzalloc(sizeof(*mdev), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>  	if (!mdev) {
>>>> -		ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> -		goto create_err;
>>>> +		mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>
>> mdev_put_parent(parent) missing here again.
> 
> 
> Oops, will fix both.
> 
> 
>>>>  	memcpy(&mdev->uuid, &uuid, sizeof(uuid_le));
>>>> +	list_add(&mdev->next, &mdev_list);
>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +
>>>>  	mdev->parent = parent;
>>>>  	kref_init(&mdev->ref);
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -352,21 +328,18 @@ int mdev_device_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct device *dev, uuid_le uuid)
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>>  	mdev->type_kobj = kobj;
>>>> +	mdev->active = true;
>>>>  	dev_dbg(&mdev->dev, "MDEV: created\n");
>>>>  
>>>> -	mutex_unlock(&parent->lock);
>>>> -
>>>> -	mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> -	list_add(&mdev->next, &mdev_list);
>>>> -	mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> -
>>>> -	return ret;
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>>  
>>>>  create_failed:
>>>>  	device_unregister(&mdev->dev);
>>>>  
>>>>  create_err:
>>>> -	mutex_unlock(&parent->lock);
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +	list_del(&mdev->next);
>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>>  	mdev_put_parent(parent);
>>>>  	return ret;
>>>>  }
>>>> @@ -377,44 +350,43 @@ int mdev_device_remove(struct device *dev, bool force_remove)
>>>>  	struct mdev_parent *parent;
>>>>  	struct mdev_type *type;
>>>>  	int ret;
>>>> -	bool found = false;
>>>>  
>>>>  	mdev = to_mdev_device(dev);
>>>>  
>>>>  	mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>>  	list_for_each_entry(tmp, &mdev_list, next) {
>>>> -		if (tmp == mdev) {
>>>> -			found = true;
>>>> +		if (tmp == mdev)
>>>>  			break;
>>>> -		}
>>>>  	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (found)
>>>> -		list_del(&mdev->next);
>>>> +	if (tmp != mdev) {
>>>> +		mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +		return -ENODEV;
>>>> +	}
>>>>  
>>>> -	mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +	if (!mdev->active) {
>>>> +		mutex_unlock(&mdev_list_lock);
>>>> +		return -EAGAIN;
>>>> +	}  
>>>
>>> I'm not sure whether this is 100% watertight. Consider:
>>>
>>> - device gets registered, we have added it to the list, made it visible
>>>   in sysfs and have added the remove attribute, but not yet the symlinks
>>> - userspace can access the remove attribute and trigger removal
>>> - we do an early exit here because not yet active
>>> - ???
>>>
>>> (If there's any problem, it's a very pathological case, and I don't
>>> think anything really bad can happen. I just want to make sure we don't
>>> miss anything.)
> 
> The presented scenario is exactly the use case that the -EAGAIN return
> is intended to handle.  I can't put a mutex on the mdev_device to block
> this path as the mdev creation might ultimately fail and the device
> released (perhaps not possible in our code flow, but that would be a
> very subtle detail to rely on).  So any sort of blocking approach would
> require releasing mdev_list_lock and re-scanning in a busy loop.  Why
> bother to do that when we can indicate the same to the user through
> -EAGAIN.  AIUI, this is the purpose of -EAGAIN and it's up to userspace
> to decide how they'd like to handle it, try again or abort.  Are there
> suggestions for alternatives?  Thanks,
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists