Date:   Mon, 25 Mar 2019 20:16:45 -0600
From:   Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
To:     Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
Cc:     "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kwankhede@...dia.com" <kwankhede@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove sequence

On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 01:43:44 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 7:06 PM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > kwankhede@...dia.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove sequence
> > 
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:34:28 +0000
> > Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 6:19 PM
> > > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> > > > kwankhede@...dia.com
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove
> > > > sequence
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:20:35 -0500
> > > > Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com> wrote:
> > > >  
> > > > > There are five problems with current code structure.
> > > > > 1. mdev device is placed on the mdev bus before it is created in
> > > > > the vendor driver. Once a device is placed on the mdev bus without
> > > > > creating its supporting underlying vendor device, an open() can
> > > > > get triggered by userspace on partially initialized device.
> > > > > Below ladder diagram highlight it.
> > > > >
> > > > >       cpu-0                                       cpu-1
> > > > >       -----                                       -----
> > > > >    create_store()
> > > > >      mdev_create_device()
> > > > >        device_register()
> > > > >           ...
> > > > >          vfio_mdev_probe()
> > > > >          ...creates char device
> > > > >                                         vfio_mdev_open()
> > > > >                                           parent->ops->open(mdev)
> > > > >                                             vfio_ap_mdev_open()
> > > > >                                               matrix_mdev = NULL
> > > > >         [...]
> > > > >         parent->ops->create()
> > > > >           vfio_ap_mdev_create()
> > > > >             mdev_set_drvdata(mdev, matrix_mdev);
> > > > >             /* Valid pointer set above */
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Current creation sequence is,
> > > > >    parent->ops_create()
> > > > >    groups_register()
> > > > >
> > > > > Remove sequence is,
> > > > >    parent->ops->remove()
> > > > >    groups_unregister()
> > > > > However, remove sequence should be exact mirror of creation  
> > sequence.  
> > > > > Once this is achieved, all users of the mdev will be terminated
> > > > > first before removing underlying vendor device.
> > > > > (Follow standard linux driver model).
> > > > > At that point vendor's remove() ops shouldn't failed because
> > > > > device is taken off the bus that should terminate the users.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Additionally any new mdev driver that wants to work on mdev
> > > > > device during probe() routine registered using
> > > > > mdev_register_driver() needs to get stable mdev structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. In following sequence, child devices created while removing
> > > > > mdev parent device can be left out, or it may lead to race of
> > > > > removing half initialized child mdev devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > issue-1:
> > > > > --------
> > > > >        cpu-0                         cpu-1
> > > > >        -----                         -----
> > > > >                                   mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > >                                      device_for_each_child()
> > > > >                                         mdev_device_remove_cb()
> > > > >                                             mdev_device_remove()
> > > > > create_store()
> > > > >   mdev_device_create()                   [...]
> > > > >        device_register()
> > > > >                                   parent_remove_sysfs_files()
> > > > >                                   /* BUG: device added by cpu-0
> > > > >                                    * whose parent is getting removed.
> > > > >                                    */
> > > > >
> > > > > issue-2:
> > > > > --------
> > > > >        cpu-0                         cpu-1
> > > > >        -----                         -----
> > > > > create_store()
> > > > >   mdev_device_create()                   [...]
> > > > >        device_register()
> > > > >
> > > > >        [...]                      mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > >                                      device_for_each_child()
> > > > >                                         mdev_device_remove_cb()
> > > > >                                             mdev_device_remove()
> > > > >
> > > > >        mdev_create_sysfs_files()
> > > > >        /* BUG: create is adding
> > > > >         * sysfs files for a device
> > > > >         * which is undergoing removal.
> > > > >         */
> > > > >                                  parent_remove_sysfs_files()  
> > > >
> > > > In both cases above, it looks like the device will hold a reference
> > > > to the parent, so while there is a race, the parent object isn't released.  
> > > Yes, parent object is not released but parent fields are not stable.
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Below crash is observed when user initiated remove is in
> > > > > progress and mdev_unregister_driver() completes parent  
> > unregistration.  
> > > > >
> > > > >        cpu-0                         cpu-1
> > > > >        -----                         -----
> > > > > remove_store()
> > > > >    mdev_device_remove()
> > > > >    active = false;
> > > > >                                   mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > >                                     remove type
> > > > >    [...]
> > > > >    mdev_remove_ops() crashes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is similar race like create() racing with mdev_unregister_device().  
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I catch this, the device should have a reference to the
> > > > parent, and we don't specifically clear parent->ops, so what's
> > > > getting removed that causes this oops?  Is .remove pointing at bad text  
> > regardless?  
> > > >  
> > > I guess the mdev_attr_groups being stale now.
> > >  
> > > > > mtty mtty: MDEV: Registered
> > > > > iommu: Adding device 83b8f4f2-509f-382f-3c1e-e6bfe0fa1001 to group
> > > > > 57 vfio_mdev 83b8f4f2-509f-382f-3c1e-e6bfe0fa1001: MDEV: group_id
> > > > > = 57 mdev_device_remove sleep started mtty mtty: MDEV:
> > > > > Unregistering
> > > > > mtty_dev: Unloaded!
> > > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffc027d668
> > > > > PGD
> > > > > af9818067 P4D af9818067 PUD af981a067 PMD 8583c3067 PTE 0
> > > > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
> > > > > CPU: 15 PID: 3517 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted
> > > > > 5.0.0-rc7-vdevbus+ #2 Hardware name: Supermicro
> > > > > SYS-6028U-TR4+/X10DRU-i+, BIOS 2.0b 08/09/2016
> > > > > RIP: 0010:mdev_device_remove_ops+0x1a/0x50 [mdev] Call Trace:
> > > > >  mdev_device_remove+0xef/0x130 [mdev]
> > > > >  remove_store+0x77/0xa0 [mdev]
> > > > >  kernfs_fop_write+0x113/0x1a0
> > > > >  __vfs_write+0x33/0x1b0
> > > > >  ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x64/0x70
> > > > >  ? rcu_sync_lockdep_assert+0x2a/0x50  ?
> > > > > __sb_start_write+0x121/0x1b0  ? vfs_write+0x17c/0x1b0
> > > > >  vfs_write+0xad/0x1b0
> > > > >  ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
> > > > >  ksys_write+0x55/0xc0
> > > > >  do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x210
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, mdev core is improved in following ways to overcome
> > > > > above issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Before placing mdev devices on the bus, perform vendor drivers
> > > > > creation which supports the mdev creation.
> > > > > This ensures that mdev specific all necessary fields are
> > > > > initialized before a given mdev can be accessed by bus driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. During remove flow, first remove the device from the bus. This
> > > > > ensures that any bus specific devices and data is cleared.
> > > > > Once device is taken of the mdev bus, perform remove() of mdev
> > > > > from the vendor driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Linux core device model provides way to register and auto
> > > > > unregister the device sysfs attribute groups at dev->groups.
> > > > > Make use of this groups to let core create the groups and simplify
> > > > > code to avoid explicit groups creation and removal.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Wait for any ongoing mdev create() and remove() to finish
> > > > > before unregistering parent device using srcu. This continues to
> > > > > allow multiple create and remove to progress in parallel. At the
> > > > > same time guard parent removal while parent is being access by
> > > > > create() and remove  
> > > > callbacks.
> > > >
> > > > So there should be 4-5 separate patches here?  Wishful thinking?
> > > >  
> > > create, remove racing with unregister is handled using srcu.
> > > Change-3 cannot be done without fixing the sequence so it should be in  
> > patch that fixes it.  
> > > Change described changes 1-2-3 are just one change. It is just the patch  
> > description to bring clarity.  
> > > Change-4 can be possibly done as split to different patch.
> > >  
> > > > > Fixes: 7b96953bc640 ("vfio: Mediated device Core driver")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@...lanox.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c    | 142 +++++++++++++++++++++---------  
> > -----  
> > > > ----  
> > > > >  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_private.h |   7 +-
> > > > >  drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c   |   6 +-
> > > > >  3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c index 944a058..8fe0ed1 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static void mdev_release_parent(struct kref *kref)
> > > > >  						  ref);
> > > > >  	struct device *dev = parent->dev;
> > > > >
> > > > > +	cleanup_srcu_struct(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > >  	kfree(parent);
> > > > >  	put_device(dev);
> > > > >  }
> > > > > @@ -103,56 +104,30 @@ static inline void mdev_put_parent(struct  
> > > > mdev_parent *parent)  
> > > > >  		kref_put(&parent->ref, mdev_release_parent);  }
> > > > >
> > > > > -static int mdev_device_create_ops(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > > > -				  struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > > > > +static int mdev_device_must_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)  
> > > >
> > > > Naming is off here, mdev_device_remove_common()?
> > > >  
> > > Yes, sounds better.
> > >  
> > > > >  {
> > > > > -	struct mdev_parent *parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > +	struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > > +	struct mdev_type *type;
> > > > >  	int ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > -	ret = parent->ops->create(kobj, mdev);
> > > > > -	if (ret)
> > > > > -		return ret;
> > > > > +	type = to_mdev_type(mdev->type_kobj);
> > > > >
> > > > > -	ret = sysfs_create_groups(&mdev->dev.kobj,
> > > > > -				  parent->ops->mdev_attr_groups);
> > > > > +	mdev_remove_sysfs_files(&mdev->dev, type);
> > > > > +	device_del(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > +	parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > +	ret = parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > >  	if (ret)
> > > > > -		parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > > +		dev_err(&mdev->dev, "Remove failed: err=%d\n", ret);  
> > > >
> > > > Let the caller decide whether to be verbose with the error, parent
> > > > removal might want to warn, sysfs remove might just return an error.
> > > >  
> > > I didn't follow. Caller meaning mdev_device_remove_common() or vendor  
> > driver?
> > 
> > I mean the callback iterator on the parent remove can do a WARN_ON if this
> > returns an error while the device remove path can silently return -EBUSY, the
> > common function doesn't need to decide whether the parent ops remove
> > function deserves a dev_err.
> >   
> Ok. I understood. 
> But device remove returning silent -EBUSY looks an error that should
> get logged in, because this is something not expected. Its probably
> late for sysfs layer to return report an error by that time it prints
> device name, because put_device() is done. So if remove() returns an
> error, I think its legitimate failure to do WARN_ON or dev_err().

Calling put_device() if the parent remove op fails looks like a bug
introduced by this series, the current code allows that failure leaving
the device in a coherent state and returning errno to the sysfs store
function.

> > > > >
> > > > > +	/* Balances with device_initialize() */
> > > > > +	put_device(&mdev->dev);
> > > > >  	return ret;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/*
> > > > > - * mdev_device_remove_ops gets called from sysfs's 'remove'
> > > > > and when parent
> > > > > - * device is being unregistered from mdev device framework.
> > > > > - * - 'force_remove' is set to 'false' when called from
> > > > > sysfs's 'remove'  
> > which  
> > > > > - *   indicates that if the mdev device is active, used by
> > > > > VMM or  
> > userspace  
> > > > > - *   application, vendor driver could return error then
> > > > > don't remove  
> > the  
> > > > device.  
> > > > > - * - 'force_remove' is set to 'true' when called from  
> > > > mdev_unregister_device()  
> > > > > - *   which indicate that parent device is being removed from
> > > > > mdev  
> > device  
> > > > > - *   framework so remove mdev device forcefully.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > -static int mdev_device_remove_ops(struct mdev_device *mdev,
> > > > > bool force_remove) -{
> > > > > -	struct mdev_parent *parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > -	int ret;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -	/*
> > > > > -	 * Vendor driver can return error if VMM or
> > > > > userspace application is
> > > > > -	 * using this mdev device.
> > > > > -	 */
> > > > > -	ret = parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > > -	if (ret && !force_remove)
> > > > > -		return ret;
> > > > > -
> > > > > -	sysfs_remove_groups(&mdev->dev.kobj, parent->ops-
> > > > >mdev_attr_groups);
> > > > > -	return 0;
> > > > > -}  
> > > >
> > > > Seems like there's easily a separate patch in pushing the
> > > > create/remove ops into the calling function and separating for
> > > > the iterator callback, that would make this easier to review.
> > > >  
> > > > > -
> > > > >  static int mdev_device_remove_cb(struct device *dev, void
> > > > > *data)  { if (dev_is_mdev(dev))
> > > > > -		mdev_device_remove(dev, true);
> > > > > -
> > > > > +		mdev_device_must_remove(to_mdev_device(dev));
> > > > >  	return 0;
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -194,6 +169,7 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device
> > > > > *dev, const  
> > > > struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)  
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >
> > > > >  	kref_init(&parent->ref);
> > > > > +	init_srcu_struct(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > >
> > > > >  	parent->dev = dev;
> > > > >  	parent->ops = ops;
> > > > > @@ -214,6 +190,7 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device
> > > > > *dev, const  
> > > > struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)  
> > > > >  	if (ret)
> > > > >  		dev_warn(dev, "Failed to create
> > > > > compatibility class link\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > +	rcu_assign_pointer(parent->self, parent);
> > > > >  	list_add(&parent->next, &parent_list);
> > > > >  	mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -244,21 +221,36 @@ void mdev_unregister_device(struct
> > > > > device *dev)
> > > > >
> > > > >  	mutex_lock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > >  	parent = __find_parent_device(dev);
> > > > > -
> > > > >  	if (!parent) {
> > > > >  		mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > >  		return;
> > > > >  	}
> > > > > +	list_del(&parent->next);
> > > > > +	mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	dev_info(dev, "MDEV: Unregistering\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > -	list_del(&parent->next);
> > > > > +	/* Publish that this mdev parent is unregistering.
> > > > > So any new
> > > > > +	 * create/remove cannot start on this parent anymore
> > > > > by user.
> > > > > +	 */  
> > > >
> > > > Comment style, we're not in netdev.  
> > > Yep. Will fix it.  
> > > >  
> > > > > +	rcu_assign_pointer(parent->self, NULL);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * Wait for any active create() or remove() mdev ops
> > > > > on the parent
> > > > > +	 * to complete.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	synchronize_srcu(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	/* At this point it is confirmed that any pending
> > > > > user initiated
> > > > > +	 * create or remove callbacks accessing the parent
> > > > > are completed.
> > > > > +	 * It is safe to remove the parent now.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > >  	class_compat_remove_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, dev,
> > > > > NULL);
> > > > >
> > > > >  	device_for_each_child(dev, NULL,
> > > > > mdev_device_remove_cb);
> > > > >
> > > > >  	parent_remove_sysfs_files(parent);
> > > > >
> > > > > -	mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > >  	mdev_put_parent(parent);
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdev_unregister_device);
> > > > > @@ -278,14 +270,24 @@ 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_parent *valid_parent;
> > > > >  	struct mdev_device *mdev, *tmp;
> > > > >  	struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > >  	struct mdev_type *type = to_mdev_type(kobj);
> > > > > +	int srcu_idx;
> > > > >
> > > > >  	parent = mdev_get_parent(type->parent);
> > > > >  	if (!parent)
> > > > >  		return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > +	srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > +	valid_parent = srcu_dereference(parent->self,
> > > > > &parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > +	if (!valid_parent) {
> > > > > +		/* parent is undergoing unregistration */
> > > > > +		ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > > +		goto mdev_fail;
> > > > > +	}
> > > > > +
> > > > >  	mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > >  	/* Check for duplicate */
> > > > > @@ -310,68 +312,76 @@ int mdev_device_create(struct kobject
> > > > > *kobj, struct device *dev, uuid_le uuid)
> > > > >
> > > > >  	mdev->parent = parent;
> > > > >
> > > > > +	device_initialize(&mdev->dev);
> > > > >  	mdev->dev.parent  = dev;
> > > > >  	mdev->dev.bus     = &mdev_bus_type;
> > > > >  	mdev->dev.release = mdev_device_release;
> > > > > +	mdev->dev.groups =
> > > > > type->parent->ops->mdev_attr_groups; dev_set_name(&mdev->dev,
> > > > > "%pUl", uuid.b);
> > > > >
> > > > > -	ret = device_register(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > +	ret = type->parent->ops->create(kobj, mdev);
> > > > >  	if (ret)
> > > > > -		goto mdev_fail;
> > > > > +		goto create_fail;
> > > > >
> > > > > -	ret = mdev_device_create_ops(kobj, mdev);
> > > > > +	ret = device_add(&mdev->dev);  
> > > >
> > > > Separating device_initialize() and device_add() also looks like
> > > > a separate patch, then the srcu could be added at the end.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Alex  
> > >
> > > I saw little more core generated that way, but I think its fine.
> > > Basically, create/remove callback sequencing that does the
> > > device_inititailze/add etc in one patch and User side race
> > > handling using  
> > srcu in another patch.  
> > > Sounds good?  
> > 
> > Splitting device_register into device_intialize/device_add solves
> > the first issue alone, that can be one patch.    
> Yes, once this is done, mdev_device_create_ops() is just a one line
> wrapper to groups creation. Hence I was considering to do in same
> patch, but its fine as a separate clean up patch. More split details
> below.
> 
> > Creating the common remove function
> > seems like a logical next patch.  The third patch could be using
> > the driver- core group attribute via those paths.  Another patch
> > could then incorporate the srcu code to gate the create/remove
> > around parent removal.  This basically matches your steps to
> > address these issues, it seems very split-able. Thanks,
> >   
> So I reworked to split this one patch to following smaller refactor
> and fixes. 1. use of device_inititalize/add/remove helpers without
> fixing the sequence as prep patch 2. fix the create/remove sequence
> 3. factor out groups creation
> 4. remove helper function
> 5. srcu fix

Looks good, I think it will be much easier to review that way.  Thanks,

Alex

Powered by blists - more mailing lists