linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] 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]

Message-Id: <20210610120615.172224-3-pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Jun 2021 08:06:15 -0400
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     seanjc@...gle.com, bgardon@...gle.com
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: Don't take mmu_lock for range invalidation unless necessary

From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>

Avoid taking mmu_lock for .invalidate_range_{start,end}() notifications
that are unrelated to KVM.  This is possible now that memslot updates are
blocked from range_start() to range_end(); that ensures that lock elision
happens in both or none, and therefore that mmu_notifier_count updates
(which must occur while holding mmu_lock for write) are always paired
across start->end.

Based on patches originally written by Ben Gardon.

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 20 +++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 0dc0726c8d18..2e73edfcc8db 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -496,17 +496,6 @@ static __always_inline int __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
 
 	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
 
-	/* The on_lock() path does not yet support lock elision. */
-	if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock)) {
-		locked = true;
-		KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
-
-		range->on_lock(kvm, range->start, range->end);
-
-		if (IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->handler))
-			goto out_unlock;
-	}
-
 	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
 		slots = __kvm_memslots(kvm, i);
 		kvm_for_each_memslot(slot, slots) {
@@ -538,6 +527,10 @@ static __always_inline int __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
 			if (!locked) {
 				locked = true;
 				KVM_MMU_LOCK(kvm);
+				if (!IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->on_lock))
+					range->on_lock(kvm, range->start, range->end);
+				if (IS_KVM_NULL_FN(range->handler))
+					break;
 			}
 			ret |= range->handler(kvm, &gfn_range);
 		}
@@ -546,7 +540,6 @@ static __always_inline int __kvm_handle_hva_range(struct kvm *kvm,
 	if (range->flush_on_ret && (ret || kvm->tlbs_dirty))
 		kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
 
-out_unlock:
 	if (locked)
 		KVM_MMU_UNLOCK(kvm);
 
@@ -1324,7 +1317,8 @@ static struct kvm_memslots *install_new_memslots(struct kvm *kvm,
 
 	/*
 	 * Do not store the new memslots while there are invalidations in
-	 * progress (preparatory change for the next commit).
+	 * progress, otherwise the locking in invalidate_range_start and
+	 * invalidate_range_end will be unbalanced.
 	 */
 	spin_lock(&kvm->mn_invalidate_lock);
 	prepare_to_rcuwait(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait);
-- 
2.27.0