linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: do not open code locks for VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5dd3cc05-f789-21a3-50c7-ee80d850a105@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 13 Jul 2021 09:48:01 -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,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, jgg@...dia.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
        hca@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: do not open code locks for
 VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM notification



On 7/12/21 7:38 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed,  7 Jul 2021 11:41:56 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> It was pointed out during an unrelated patch review that locks should not
>> be open coded - i.e., writing the algorithm of a standard lock in a
>> function instead of using a lock from the standard library. The setting and
>> testing of the kvm_busy flag and sleeping on a wait_event is the same thing
>> a lock does. Whatever potential deadlock was found and reported via the
>> lockdep splat was not magically removed by going to a wait_queue; it just
>> removed the lockdep annotations that would identify the issue early
> Did you change your opinion since we last talked about it? This reads to
> me like we are deadlocky without this patch, because of the last
> sentence.

The words are a direct paraphrase of Jason G's responses to my
query regarding what he meant by open coding locks. I
am choosing to take his word on the subject and remove the
open coded locks.

Having said that, we do not have a deadlock problem without
this patch. If you recall, the lockdep splat occurred ONLY when
running a Secure Execution guest in a CI environment. Since
AP is not yet supported for SE guests, there is no danger of
a lockdep splat occurring in a customer environment. Given
Jason's objections to the original solution (i.e., kvm_busy flag
and wait queue), I decided to replace the so-called open
coded locks.

>
> Regards,
> Halil