| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <beff8d5e-a670-8015-028f-a704627a2b16@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 09:27:55 -0400
From: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, farman@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
svens@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com,
imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, vneethv@...ux.ibm.com,
oberpar@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
pasic@...ux.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
jgg@...dia.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 16/21] KVM: s390: pci: add routines to start/stop
interpretive execution
On 6/28/22 6:53 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>
>
> On 6/6/22 22:33, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>> These routines will be invoked at the time an s390x vfio-pci device is
>> associated with a KVM (or when the association is removed), allowing
>> the zPCI device to enable or disable load/store intepretation mode;
>> this requires the host zPCI device to inform firmware of the unique
>> token (GISA designation) that is associated with the owning KVM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 18 ++++
>> arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h | 1 +
>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 15 +++
>> arch/s390/kvm/pci.c | 162 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> arch/s390/kvm/pci.h | 5 +
>> arch/s390/pci/pci.c | 4 +
>> 6 files changed, 205 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 8e381603b6a7..6e83d746bae2 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> #include <linux/kvm.h>
>> #include <linux/seqlock.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/pci.h>
>> #include <asm/debug.h>
>> #include <asm/cpu.h>
>> #include <asm/fpu/api.h>
>> @@ -967,6 +968,8 @@ struct kvm_arch{
>> DECLARE_BITMAP(idle_mask, KVM_MAX_VCPUS);
>> struct kvm_s390_gisa_interrupt gisa_int;
>> struct kvm_s390_pv pv;
>> + struct list_head kzdev_list;
>> + spinlock_t kzdev_list_lock;
>> };
>> #define KVM_HVA_ERR_BAD (-1UL)
>> @@ -1017,4 +1020,19 @@ static inline void
>> kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(struct kvm *kvm,
>> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_blocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>> static inline void kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>> +#define __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_VM_FREE
>> +void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM
>> +int kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev, struct kvm *kvm);
>> +void kvm_s390_pci_unregister_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev);
>> +#else
>> +static inline int kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm(struct zpci_dev *dev,
>> + struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + return -EPERM;
>> +}
>> +static inline void kvm_s390_pci_unregister_kvm(struct zpci_dev *dev) {}
>> +#endif
>> +
>> #endif
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> index 322060a75d9f..85eb0ef9d4c3 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pci.h
>> @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ struct zpci_dev {
>> /* IOMMU and passthrough */
>> struct s390_domain *s390_domain; /* s390 IOMMU domain data */
>> struct kvm_zdev *kzdev;
>> + struct mutex kzdev_lock;
>
> I guess that since it did not exist before the lock is not there to
> protect the zpci_dev struct.
Right, not the zpci_dev itself but it is protecting the contents of the
kzdev (including the pointer to the zdev e.g. kzdev->zdev)
> May be add a comment to say what it is protecting.
Sure
>
>
>> };
>> static inline bool zdev_enabled(struct zpci_dev *zdev)
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index a66da3f66114..4758bb731199 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -2790,6 +2790,14 @@ static void sca_dispose(struct kvm *kvm)
>> kvm->arch.sca = NULL;
>> }
>> +void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM))
>> + kvm_s390_pci_clear_list(kvm);
>> +
>> + __kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
>> +}
>> +
>> int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>> {
>> gfp_t alloc_flags = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT;
>> @@ -2872,6 +2880,13 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned
>> long type)
>> kvm_s390_crypto_init(kvm);
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_VFIO_PCI_ZDEV_KVM)) {
>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> + kvm_s390_pci_init_list(kvm);
>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_pci_enable_interp(kvm);
>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> + }
>> +
>> mutex_init(&kvm->arch.float_int.ais_lock);
>> spin_lock_init(&kvm->arch.float_int.lock);
>> for (i = 0; i < FIRQ_LIST_COUNT; i++)
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c
>> index b232c8cbaa81..24211741deb0 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pci.c
>> @@ -12,7 +12,9 @@
>> #include <asm/pci.h>
>> #include <asm/pci_insn.h>
>> #include <asm/pci_io.h>
>> +#include <asm/sclp.h>
>> #include "pci.h"
>> +#include "kvm-s390.h"
>> struct zpci_aift *aift;
>> @@ -423,6 +425,166 @@ static void kvm_s390_pci_dev_release(struct
>> zpci_dev *zdev)
>> kfree(kzdev);
>> }
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Register device with the specified KVM. If interpetation
>> facilities are
>> + * available, enable them and let userspace indicate whether or not
>> they will
>> + * be used (specify SHM bit to disable).
>> + */
>> +int kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev, struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + int rc;
>> +
>> + if (!zdev)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> +
>> + if (zdev->kzdev || zdev->gisa != 0 || !kvm) {
>> + mutex_unlock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>
> Why do we need to lock KVM here?
Hmm, good point, now that we get a reference this seems unnecessary
>
> just a question, I do not think it is a big problem.
>
>> +
>> + rc = kvm_s390_pci_dev_open(zdev);
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto err;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If interpretation facilities aren't available, add the device to
>> + * the kzdev list but don't enable for interpretation.
>> + */
>> + if (!kvm_s390_pci_interp_allowed())
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If this is the first request to use an interpreted device,
>> make the
>> + * necessary vcpu changes
>> + */
>> + if (!kvm->arch.use_zpci_interp)
>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_pci_enable_interp(kvm);
>> +
>> + if (zdev_enabled(zdev)) {
>> + rc = zpci_disable_device(zdev);
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Store information about the identity of the kvm guest allowed to
>> + * access this device via interpretation to be used by host CLP
>> + */
>> + zdev->gisa = (u32)virt_to_phys(&kvm->arch.sie_page2->gisa);
>> +
>> + rc = zpci_enable_device(zdev);
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto clear_gisa;
>> +
>> + /* Re-register the IOMMU that was already created */
>> + rc = zpci_register_ioat(zdev, 0, zdev->start_dma, zdev->end_dma,
>> + virt_to_phys(zdev->dma_table));
>> + if (rc)
>> + goto clear_gisa;
>> +
>> +out:
>> + zdev->kzdev->kvm = kvm;
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&kvm->arch.kzdev_list_lock);
>> + list_add_tail(&zdev->kzdev->entry, &kvm->arch.kzdev_list);
>> + spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.kzdev_list_lock);
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> + mutex_unlock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> +clear_gisa:
>> + zdev->gisa = 0;
>> +err:
>> + if (zdev->kzdev)
>> + kvm_s390_pci_dev_release(zdev);
>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> + mutex_unlock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> + kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
>> + return rc;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm);
>> +
>> +void kvm_s390_pci_unregister_kvm(struct zpci_dev *zdev)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm *kvm;
>> +
>> + if (!zdev)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(!zdev->kzdev)) {
>
> When can this happen ?
>
It cannot today, nor should it ever (hence the WARN_ON) -- if we do,
it's a case of programming error introduced somewhere (vfio has a KVM
reference but we never built a kzdev via kvm_s390_pci_register_kvm or
lost it somehow)
>> + mutex_unlock(&zdev->kzdev_lock);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kvm = zdev->kzdev->kvm;
>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * A 0 gisa means interpretation was never enabled, just remove the
>> + * device from the list.
>> + */
>> + if (zdev->gisa == 0)
>> + goto out;
>> +
>> + /* Forwarding must be turned off before interpretation */
>> + if (zdev->kzdev->fib.fmt0.aibv != 0)
>> + kvm_s390_pci_aif_disable(zdev, true);
>> +
>> + /* Remove the host CLP guest designation */
>> + zdev->gisa = 0;
>> +
>> + if (zdev_enabled(zdev)) {
>> + if (zpci_disable_device(zdev))
>> + goto out;
>
> NIT debug trace ?
We should at least get a trace entry in from clp_disable_fh() if
something goes wrong here.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (zpci_enable_device(zdev))
>> + goto out;
>
> NIT debug trace?
And similarly, a trace entry from clp_enable_fh() here. So I think
these are OK for now.
I am consdering a follow-on to add new s390dbf entries for 'kvm-pci' or
so, these might make sense there for additional context, but let's leave
that for after this series.
>
> Only some questions, otherwise, LGTM
>
> Acked-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
>
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists