linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Lock its device list during find and create its device

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: <23664397-eb28-4362-b292-091ba190be5e@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Feb 2019 09:28:50 +0000
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To:     Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
        jason@...edaemon.net, wanghaibin.wang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3-its: Lock its device list during find and
 create its device

On 01/02/2019 06:41, Zheng Xiang wrote:
> 
> On 2019/1/31 23:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Hi Zeng,
>>
>> On 31/01/2019 14:47, Zheng Xiang wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On 2019/1/29 13:42, Zheng Xiang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/1/28 21:51, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 28/01/2019 07:13, Zheng Xiang wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2019/1/26 19:38, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Zheng,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 06:16:24 +0000,
>>>>>>> Zheng Xiang <zhengxiang9@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Currently each PCI device under a PCI Bridge shares the same device id
>>>>>>>> and ITS device. Assume there are two PCI devices call its_msi_prepare
>>>>>>>> concurrently and they are both going to find and create their ITS
>>>>>>>> device. There is a chance that the later one couldn't find ITS device
>>>>>>>> before the other one creating the ITS device. It will cause the later
>>>>>>>> one to create a different ITS device even if they have the same
>>>>>>>> device_id.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting finding. Is this something you've actually seen in practice
>>>>>>> with two devices being probed in parallel? Or something that you found
>>>>>>> by inspection?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I find this problem after analyzing the reason of VM hung. At last, I
>>>>>> find that the virtio-gpu cannot receive the MSI interrupts due to sharing
>>>>>> a same event_id as virtio-serial.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/10/299 for the bug report.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This problem can be reproducted with high probability by booting a Qemu/KVM
>>>>>> VM with a virtio-serial controller and a virtio-gpu adding to a PCI Bridge
>>>>>> and also adding some delay before creating ITS device.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough. Do you mind sharing your QEMU command line? It'd be useful
>>>>> if I could reproduce it here (and would give me a way to check that it
>>>>> doesn't regress).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have you reproduced it with my QEMU command line?
>>>
>>> If so, should I send a V2 patch with your suggestion?
>>
>> I've queued the following, much more complete patch:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=irq/irqchip-next&id=9791ec7df0e7b4d80706ccea8f24b6542f6059e9
>>
>> Can you check that it works for you? I didn't manage to get the right
>> timing conditions, but I also had issues getting virtio-gpu running on
>> my TX2, so one might explain the other.
>>
> 
> It works for my case, but I worried about the below lines which may
> cause memory leak.
> 
> @@ -2627,8 +2640,14 @@ static void its_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq,
>  		irq_domain_reset_irq_data(data);
>  	}
> 
> -	/* If all interrupts have been freed, start mopping the floor */
> -	if (bitmap_empty(its_dev->event_map.lpi_map,
> +	mutex_lock(&its->dev_alloc_lock);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If all interrupts have been freed, start mopping the
> +	 * floor. This is conditionned on the device not being shared.
> +	 */
> +	if (!its_dev->shared &&
> +	    bitmap_empty(its_dev->event_map.lpi_map,
>  			 its_dev->event_map.nr_lpis)) {
>  		its_lpi_free(its_dev->event_map.lpi_map,
>  			     its_dev->event_map.lpi_base,
> 
> It seems that the shared its_dev would never be freed since the value of
> its_dev->shared is always *true*.

Yes, and that is on purpose. As we don't refcount the number of
interrupts that have been requested in the prepare phase, there is a
race between free and alloc. We can have the following situation:

CPU0:               CPU1:

msi_prepare:
mutex_lock()
find device()
  -> found
store its_dev
mutex_unlock()

                    its_irq_domain_free:
                    mutex_lock()
                    free_device()
                    mutex_unlock()

its_irq_domain_alloc:
use its_dev -> boom.


So the trick is not to free the its_dev structure if it shares a devid.
It is not really a leak, as the next device sharing the same devid will
pick up the same structure.

Does it make sense?

Thanks,

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