linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked

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: <03b33367-ccde-a121-0faf-c347f2c789e2@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 07:14:21 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>, farman@...ux.ibm.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask if not idle after set



Am 19.10.21 um 23:35 schrieb Christian Borntraeger:
> 
> 
> Am 19.10.21 um 19:54 schrieb Halil Pasic:
>> The idea behind kicked mask is that we should not re-kick a vcpu
>> from __airqs_kick_single_vcpu() that is already in the middle of
>> being kicked by the same function.
>>
>> If however the vcpu that was idle before when the idle_mask was
>> examined, is not idle any more after the kicked_mask is set, that
>> means that we don't need to kick, and that we need to clear the
>> bit we just set because we may be beyond the point where it would
>> get cleared in the wake-up process. Since the time window is short,
>> this is probably more a theoretical than a practical thing: the race
>> window is small.
>>
>> To get things harmonized let us also move the clear from vcpu_pre_run()
>> to __unset_cpu_idle().
> 
> this part makes sense.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Fixes: 9f30f6216378 ("KVM: s390: add gib_alert_irq_handler()")
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 7 ++++++-
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c  | 2 --
>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>> index 2245f4b8d362..3c80a2237ef5 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>> @@ -426,6 +426,7 @@ static void __unset_cpu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   {
>>       kvm_s390_clear_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_WAIT);
>>       clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.idle_mask);
>> +    clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.gisa_int.kicked_mask);
>>   }
>>   static void __reset_intercept_indicators(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> @@ -3064,7 +3065,11 @@ static void __airqs_kick_single_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, u8 deliverable_mask)
>>               /* lately kicked but not yet running */
>>               if (test_and_set_bit(vcpu_idx, gi->kicked_mask))
>>                   return;
>> -            kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(vcpu);
>> +            /* if meanwhile not idle: clear  and don't kick */
>> +            if (test_bit(vcpu_idx, kvm->arch.idle_mask))
>> +                kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(vcpu);
>> +            else
>> +                clear_bit(vcpu_idx, gi->kicked_mask);
> 
> I think this is now a bug. We should not return but continue in that case, no?

Thinking again about this, it might be ok. If we went from idle to non-idle we
likely were in SIE and the interrupt should have been delivered. But I would rather
wake up too often than too less.
> 
> I think it might be safer to also clear kicked_mask in __set_cpu_idle
>  From a CPUs perspective: We have been running and are on our way to become idle.
> There is no way that someone kicked us for a wakeup. In other words as long as we
> are running, there is no point in kicking us but when going idle we should get rid
> of old kick_mask bit.
> Doesnt this cover your scenario?
> 
> 
>>               return;
>>           }
>>       }
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 1c97493d21e1..6b779ef9f5fb 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -4067,8 +4067,6 @@ static int vcpu_pre_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>           kvm_s390_patch_guest_per_regs(vcpu);
>>       }
>> -    clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.gisa_int.kicked_mask);
>> -
>>       vcpu->arch.sie_block->icptcode = 0;
>>       cpuflags = atomic_read(&vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags);
>>       VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 6, "entering sie flags %x", cpuflags);
>>