linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary

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]

Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 21:05:48 +0000
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/18] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation
 unless necessary

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 31/03/21 21:47, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Rereading things, a small chunk of the rwsem nastiness can go away.  I don't see
> > any reason to use rw_semaphore instead of rwlock_t.
> 
> Wouldn't it be incorrect to lock a mutex (e.g. inside *another* MMU
> notifier's invalidate callback) while holding an rwlock_t?  That makes sense
> because anybody that's busy waiting in write_lock potentially cannot be
> preempted until the other task gets the mutex.  This is a potential
> deadlock.

Yes?  I don't think I follow your point though.  Nesting a spinlock or rwlock
inside a rwlock is ok, so long as the locks are always taken in the same order,
i.e. it's never mmu_lock -> mmu_notifier_slots_lock.

> I also thought of busy waiting on down_read_trylock if the MMU notifier
> cannot block, but that would also be invalid for the opposite reason (the
> down_write task might be asleep, waiting for other readers to release the
> task, and the down_read_trylock busy loop might not let that task run).
> 
> > And that's _already_ the worst case since notifications are currently
> > serialized by mmu_lock.
> 
> But right now notifications are not a single critical section, they're two,
> aren't they?

Ah, crud, yes.  Holding a spinlock across the entire start() ... end() would be
bad, especially when the notifier can block since that opens up the possibility
of the task sleeping/blocking/yielding while the spinlock is held.  Bummer.