[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5BB1E18802000078001ED127@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:57:44 -0600
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Juergen Gross" <jgross@...e.com>
Cc: "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...en8.de>,
"Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
"Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
<longman@...hat.com>, <mingo@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait()
nestable
>>> On 01.10.18 at 09:16, <jgross@...e.com> wrote:
> xen_qlock_wait() isn't safe for nested calls due to interrupts. A call
> of xen_qlock_kick() might be ignored in case a deeper nesting level
> was active right before the call of xen_poll_irq():
>
> CPU 1: CPU 2:
> spin_lock(lock1)
> spin_lock(lock1)
> -> xen_qlock_wait()
> -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
> Interrupt happens
> spin_unlock(lock1)
> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
> spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
> spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
> -> xen_qlock_wait()
> -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
> clears kick for lock1
> -> xen_poll_irq()
> spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
> wakes up
> spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
> IRET
> resumes in xen_qlock_wait()
> -> xen_poll_irq()
> never wakes up
>
> The solution is to disable interrupts in xen_qlock_wait() and not to
> poll for the irq in case xen_qlock_wait() is called in nmi context.
Are precautions against NMI really worthwhile? Locks acquired both
in NMI context as well as outside of it are liable to deadlock anyway,
aren't they?
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists