Message-ID: <4d05a8f4-d2e9-bc54-3e9b-6becc3281f0f@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 May 2022 09:50:50 -0400
From:   "Jason J. Herne" <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     freude@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        fiuczy@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19 11/20] s390/vfio-ap: prepare for dynamic update of
 guest's APCB on queue probe/remove

On 4/4/22 18:10, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> The callback functions for probing and removing a queue device must take
> and release the locks required to perform a dynamic update of a guest's
> APCB in the proper order.
> 
> The proper order for taking the locks is:
> 
>          matrix_dev->guests_lock => kvm->lock => matrix_dev->mdevs_lock
> 
> The proper order for releasing the locks is:
> 
>          matrix_dev->mdevs_lock => kvm->lock => matrix_dev->guests_lock
> 
> A new helper function is introduced to be used by the probe callback to
> acquire the required locks. Since the probe callback only has
> access to a queue device when it is called, the helper function will find
> the ap_matrix_mdev object to which the queue device's APQN is assigned and
> return it so the KVM guest to which the mdev is attached can be dynamically
> updated.
> 
> Note that in order to find the ap_matrix_mdev (matrix_mdev) object, it is
> necessary to search the matrix_dev->mdev_list. This presents a
> locking order dilemma because the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock can't be taken to
> protect against changes to the list while searching for the matrix_mdev to
> which a queue device's APQN is assigned. This is due to the fact that the
> proper locking order requires that the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock be taken
> after both the matrix_mdev->kvm->lock and the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock.
> Consequently, the matrix_dev->guests_lock will be used to protect against
> removal of a matrix_mdev object from the list while a queue device is
> being probed. This necessitates changes to the mdev probe/remove
> callback functions to take the matrix_dev->guests_lock prior to removing
> a matrix_mdev object from the list.
> 
> A new macro is also introduced to acquire the locks required to dynamically
> update the guest's APCB in the proper order when a queue device is
> removed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 126 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
>   1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> index 2219b1069ceb..080a733f7cd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> @@ -116,6 +116,74 @@ static const struct vfio_device_ops vfio_ap_matrix_dev_ops;
>   	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);		\
>   })
>   
> +/**
> + * vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn: retrieve the matrix mdev to which an
> + *					   APQN is assigned and acquire the
> + *					   locks required to update the APCB of
> + *					   the KVM guest to which the mdev is
> + *					   attached.
> + *
> + * @apqn: the APQN of a queue device.
> + *
> + * The proper locking order is:
> + * 1. matrix_dev->guests_lock: required to use the KVM pointer to update a KVM
> + *			       guest's APCB.
> + * 2. matrix_mdev->kvm->lock:  required to update a guest's APCB
> + * 3. matrix_dev->mdevs_lock:  required to access data stored in a matrix_mdev
> + *
> + * Note: If @apqn is not assigned to a matrix_mdev, the matrix_mdev->kvm->lock
> + *	 will not be taken.
> + *
> + * Return: the ap_matrix_mdev object to which @apqn is assigned or NULL if @apqn
> + *	   is not assigned to an ap_matrix_mdev.
> + */
> +static struct ap_matrix_mdev *vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn(int apqn)
> +{
> +	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> +		if (test_bit_inv(AP_QID_CARD(apqn), matrix_mdev->matrix.apm) &&
> +		    test_bit_inv(AP_QID_QUEUE(apqn), matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm)) {
> +			if (matrix_mdev->kvm)
> +				mutex_lock(&matrix_mdev->kvm->lock);
> +
> +			mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +
> +			return matrix_mdev;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * get_update_locks_for_queue: get the locks required to update the APCB of the
> + *			       KVM guest to which the matrix mdev linked to a
> + *			       vfio_ap_queue object is attached.
> + *
> + * @queue: a pointer to a vfio_ap_queue object.
> + *
> + * The proper locking order is:
> + * 1. matrix_dev->guests_lock: required to use the KVM pointer to update a KVM
> + *				guest's APCB.
> + * 2. queue->matrix_mdev->kvm->lock: required to update a guest's APCB
> + * 3. matrix_dev->mdevs_lock:	required to access data stored in a matrix_mdev
> + *
> + * Note: if @queue is not linked to an ap_matrix_mdev object, the KVM lock
> + *	  will not be taken.
> + */
> +#define get_update_locks_for_queue(queue) ({			\
> +	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = q->matrix_mdev;	\
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);			\
> +	if (matrix_mdev && matrix_mdev->kvm)			\
> +		mutex_lock(&matrix_mdev->kvm->lock);		\
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);			\
> +})
> +


One more comment I forgot to include before:
This macro is far too similar to existing macro, get_update_locks_for_mdev. And it is only 
called in one place. Let's remove this and replace the single invocation with:

get_update_locks_for_mdev(q->matrix_mdev);


>   /**
>    * vfio_ap_mdev_get_queue - retrieve a queue with a specific APQN from a
>    *			    hash table of queues assigned to a matrix mdev
> @@ -615,21 +683,18 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_probe(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>   	matrix_mdev->pqap_hook = handle_pqap;
>   	vfio_ap_matrix_init(&matrix_dev->info, &matrix_mdev->shadow_apcb);
>   	hash_init(matrix_mdev->qtable.queues);
> -	mdev_set_drvdata(mdev, matrix_mdev);
> -	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> -	list_add(&matrix_mdev->node, &matrix_dev->mdev_list);
> -	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   
>   	ret = vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev(&matrix_mdev->vdev);
>   	if (ret)
>   		goto err_list;
> +	mdev_set_drvdata(mdev, matrix_mdev);
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +	list_add(&matrix_mdev->node, &matrix_dev->mdev_list);
> +	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   	dev_set_drvdata(&mdev->dev, matrix_mdev);
>   	return 0;
>   
>   err_list:
> -	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> -	list_del(&matrix_mdev->node);
> -	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   	vfio_uninit_group_dev(&matrix_mdev->vdev);
>   	kfree(matrix_mdev);
>   err_dec_available:
> @@ -692,11 +757,13 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>   
>   	vfio_unregister_group_dev(&matrix_mdev->vdev);
>   
> +	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);
>   	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   	vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev);
>   	vfio_ap_mdev_unlink_fr_queues(matrix_mdev);
>   	list_del(&matrix_mdev->node);
>   	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock);
>   	vfio_uninit_group_dev(&matrix_mdev->vdev);
>   	kfree(matrix_mdev);
>   	atomic_inc(&matrix_dev->available_instances);
> @@ -1665,49 +1732,30 @@ void vfio_ap_mdev_unregister(void)
>   	mdev_unregister_driver(&vfio_ap_matrix_driver);
>   }
>   
> -/*
> - * vfio_ap_queue_link_mdev
> - *
> - * @q: The queue to link with the matrix mdev.
> - *
> - * Links @q with the matrix mdev to which the queue's APQN is assigned.
> - */
> -static void vfio_ap_queue_link_mdev(struct vfio_ap_queue *q)
> -{
> -	unsigned long apid = AP_QID_CARD(q->apqn);
> -	unsigned long apqi = AP_QID_QUEUE(q->apqn);
> -	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
> -
> -	list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> -		if (test_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm) &&
> -		    test_bit_inv(apqi, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm)) {
> -			vfio_ap_mdev_link_queue(matrix_mdev, q);
> -			break;
> -		}
> -	}
> -}
> -
>   int vfio_ap_mdev_probe_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
>   {
>   	struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
> +	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
>   	DECLARE_BITMAP(apm_delta, AP_DEVICES);
>   
>   	q = kzalloc(sizeof(*q), GFP_KERNEL);
>   	if (!q)
>   		return -ENOMEM;
> -	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   	q->apqn = to_ap_queue(&apdev->device)->qid;
>   	q->saved_isc = VFIO_AP_ISC_INVALID;
> -	vfio_ap_queue_link_mdev(q);
> -	if (q->matrix_mdev) {
> +
> +	matrix_mdev = vfio_ap_mdev_get_update_locks_for_apqn(q->apqn);
> +
> +	if (matrix_mdev) {
> +		vfio_ap_mdev_link_queue(matrix_mdev, q);
>   		memset(apm_delta, 0, sizeof(apm_delta));
>   		set_bit_inv(AP_QID_CARD(q->apqn), apm_delta);
>   		vfio_ap_mdev_filter_matrix(apm_delta,
> -					   q->matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
> -					   q->matrix_mdev);
> +					   matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
> +					   matrix_mdev);
>   	}
>   	dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, q);
> -	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +	release_update_locks_for_mdev(matrix_mdev);
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> @@ -1716,11 +1764,13 @@ void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
>   {
>   	unsigned long apid;
>   	struct vfio_ap_queue *q;
> +	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev;
>   
> -	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>   	q = dev_get_drvdata(&apdev->device);
> +	get_update_locks_for_queue(q);
> +	matrix_mdev = q->matrix_mdev;
>   
> -	if (q->matrix_mdev) {
> +	if (matrix_mdev) {
>   		vfio_ap_unlink_queue_fr_mdev(q);
>   
>   		apid = AP_QID_CARD(q->apqn);
> @@ -1731,5 +1781,5 @@ void vfio_ap_mdev_remove_queue(struct ap_device *apdev)
>   	vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(q, 1);
>   	dev_set_drvdata(&apdev->device, NULL);
>   	kfree(q);
> -	mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
> +	release_update_locks_for_mdev(matrix_mdev);
>   }


-- 
-- Jason J. Herne (jjherne@...ux.ibm.com)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists