linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 20 Oct 2021 08:03:40 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.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>,
        Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>, farman@...ux.ibm.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: s390: clear kicked_mask before sleeping again



Am 20.10.21 um 07:35 schrieb Claudio Imbrenda:
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:53:59 +0200
> Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
>> The idea behind kicked mask is that we should not re-kick a vcpu that
>> is already in the "kick" process, i.e. that was kicked and is
>> is about to be dispatched if certain conditions are met.
>>
>> The problem with the current implementation is, that it assumes the
>> kicked vcpu is going to enter SIE shortly. But under certain
>> circumstances, the vcpu we just kicked will be deemed non-runnable and
>> will remain in wait state. This can happen, if the interrupt(s) this
>> vcpu got kicked to deal with got already cleared (because the interrupts
>> got delivered to another vcpu). In this case kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable()
>> would return false, and the vcpu would remain in kvm_vcpu_block(),
>> but this time with its kicked_mask bit set. So next time around we
>> wouldn't kick the vcpu form __airqs_kick_single_vcpu(), but would assume
>> that we just kicked it.
>>
>> Let us make sure the kicked_mask is cleared before we give up on
>> re-dispatching the vcpu.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Reported-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
>> Fixes: 9f30f6216378 ("KVM: s390: add gib_alert_irq_handler()")
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 6a6dd5e1daf6..1c97493d21e1 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -3363,6 +3363,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   
>>   int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   {
>> +	clear_bit(vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu->kvm->arch.gisa_int.kicked_mask);
> 
> so, you unconditionally clear the flag, before knowing if the vCPU is
> runnable?
> 
> from your description I would have expected to only clear the bit if
> the vCPU is not runnable.
> 
> would things break if we were to try to kick the vCPU again after
> clearing the bit, but before dispatching it?

The whole logic is just an optimization to avoid unnecessary wakeups.
When the bit is set a wakup might be omitted.
I prefer to do an unneeded wakeup over not doing a wakeup so I think
over-clearing is safer.
In fact, getting rid of this micro-optimization would be a valid
alternative.
> 
>>   	return kvm_s390_vcpu_has_irq(vcpu, 0);
>>   }
>>   
>