[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <86418701-d57d-70a4-6f4c-25598b2c077e@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2018 20:41:33 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 3/3] vhost: access vq metadata through kernel
virtual address
On 2018/12/29 上午3:34, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:55:37 +0800
>
>> +static int vhost_invalidate_vmap(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
>> + struct vhost_vmap *map,
>> + unsigned long uaddr,
>> + unsigned long start,
>> + unsigned long end,
>> + bool blockable)
>> +{
>> + if (start < uaddr && end >= uaddr) {
>> + if (!blockable)
>> + return -EAGAIN;
>> + mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
>> + if (map->addr)
>> + vunmap(map->unmap_addr);
>> + map->addr = NULL;
>> + map->unmap_addr = NULL;
>> + mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
> What are the rules for these invalidate operations?
>
> Can there be partial overlaps? If so, wouldn't you need some way of
> keeping track of the partially overlapping unmaps so that once all of
> the invalidates covering the range occur you properly cleanup and do
> the vunmap()?
Yes, there can be partial overlap, so the check is buggy. We will remap
the whole range in vq_meta_prefetch() before datapath path try to use
them, so there's no need to track partial mapping here.
I spot another bug that the caller will access vq->avail without
synchronized with vhost ioctl. Since we don't want to hold vq mutex for
each invalidation, I will tear down MMU notifier during vhost ioctl to
make sure invalidation request can access them without hold vq mutex.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists