linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 01/14] s390/vfio-ap: No need to disable IRQ after queue reset

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: <cb40a506-4a17-3562-728c-cbb57cd99817@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Oct 2020 16:37:04 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        cohuck@...hat.com, mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 01/14] s390/vfio-ap: No need to disable IRQ after
 queue reset



On 10/30/20 1:42 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:29:35 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -1177,7 +1166,10 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>>>>    			 */
>>>>    			if (ret)
>>>>    				rc = ret;
>>>> -			vfio_ap_irq_disable_apqn(AP_MKQID(apid, apqi));
>>>> +			q = vfio_ap_get_queue(matrix_mdev,
>>>> +					      AP_MKQID(apid, apqi));
>>>> +			if (q)
>>>> +				vfio_ap_free_aqic_resources(q);
>>> Is it safe to do vfio_ap_free_aqic_resources() at this point? I don't
>>> think so. I mean does the current code (and vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue()
>>> in particular guarantee that the reset is actually done when we arrive
>>> here)? BTW, I think we have a similar problem with the current code as
>>> well.
>> If the return code from the vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue() function
>> is zero, then yes, we are guaranteed the reset was done and the
>> queue is empty.
> I've read up on this and I disagree. We should discuss this offline.

Maybe you are confusing things here; my statement is specific to the return
code from the vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue() function, not the response code
from the PQAP(ZAPQ) instruction. The vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue()
function issues the PQAP(ZAPQ) instruction and if the status response code
is 0 indicating the reset was successfully initiated, it waits for the
queue to empty. When the queue is empty, it returns 0 to indicate
the queue is reset. If the queue does not become empty after a period of 
time,
it will issue a warning (WARN_ON_ONCE) and return 0. In that case, I suppose
there is no guarantee the reset was done, so maybe a change needs to be
made there such as a non-zero return code.

>
>>    The function returns a non-zero return code if
>> the reset fails or the queue the reset did not complete within a given
>> amount of time, so maybe we shouldn't free AQIC resources when
>> we get a non-zero return code from the reset function?
>>
> If the queue is gone, or broken, it won't produce interrupts or poke the
> notifier bit, and we should clean up the AQIC resources.

True, which is what the code provided by this patch does; however,
the AQIC resources should be cleaned up only if the KVM pointer is
not NULL for reasons discussed elsewhere.

>
>
>> There are three occasions when the vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues()
>> is called:
>> 1. When the VFIO_DEVICE_RESET ioctl is invoked from userspace
>>       (i.e., when the guest is started)
>> 2. When the mdev fd is closed (vfio_ap_mdev_release())
>> 3. When the mdev is removed (vfio_ap_mdev_remove())
>>
>> The IRQ resources are initialized when the PQAP(AQIC)
>> is intercepted to enable interrupts. This would occur after
>> the guest boots and the AP bus initializes. So, 1 would
>> presumably occur before that happens. I couldn't find
>> anywhere in the AP bus or zcrypt code where a PQAP(AQIC)
>> is executed to disable interrupts, so my assumption is
>> that IRQ disablement is accomplished by a reset on
>> the guest. I'll have to ask Harald about that. So, 2 would
>> occur when the guest is about to terminate and 3
>> would occur only after the guest is terminated. In any
>> case, it seems that IRQ resources should be cleaned up.
>> Maybe it would be more appropriate to do that in the
>> vfio_ap_mdev_release() and vfio_ap_mdev_remove()
>> functions themselves?
> I'm a bit confused. But I think you are wrong. What happens when the
> guest reIPLs? I guess the subsystem reset should also do the
> VFIO_DEVICE_RESET ioctl, and that has to reset the queues and disable
> the interrupts. Or?

What did I say that is wrong? I think you are referring
to my statement about the VFIO_DEVICE_RESET ioctl.
I am not knowledgeable about all of the circumstances
under which the VFIO_DEVICE_RESET ioctl is invoked,
but I know for a fact that it is invoked when the guest is
started as I've verified that via tracing. On the other hand,
I suspect you are correct in assuming it is also invoked on
a subsystem reset from the guest, so that also argues for
cleaning up the IRQ resources after a reset as long as
the KVM pointer is valid.

>
> Regards,
> Halil
>