linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 10/22] KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm

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: <20220906214434.GA443010@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 14:44:34 -0700
From:   Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>, isaku.yamahata@...el.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, isaku.yamahata@...il.com,
        Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, Chao Gao <chao.gao@...el.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Shaokun Zhang <zhangshaokun@...ilicon.com>,
        Qi Liu <liuqi115@...wei.com>,
        John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/22] KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect
 kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:32:22AM +0100,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2022 03:46:43 +0100,
> Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 07:17:45PM -0700, isaku.yamahata@...el.com wrote:
> > > From: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Because kvm_count_lock unnecessarily complicates the KVM locking convention
> > > Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock for
> > > simplicity.
> > >
> > > Opportunistically add some comments on locking.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
> > > ---
> > >  Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst | 14 +++++-------
> > >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c                | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> > > index 845a561629f1..8957e32aa724 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst
> > > @@ -216,15 +216,11 @@ time it will be set using the Dirty tracking mechanism described above.
> > >  :Type:		mutex
> > >  :Arch:		any
> > >  :Protects:	- vm_list
> > > -
> > > -``kvm_count_lock``
> > > -^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > -
> > > -:Type:		raw_spinlock_t
> > > -:Arch:		any
> > > -:Protects:	- hardware virtualization enable/disable
> > > -:Comment:	'raw' because hardware enabling/disabling must be atomic /wrt
> > > -		migration.
> > > +                - kvm_usage_count
> > > +                - hardware virtualization enable/disable
> > > +:Comment:	Use cpus_read_lock() for hardware virtualization enable/disable
> > > +                because hardware enabling/disabling must be atomic /wrt
> > > +                migration.  The lock order is cpus lock => kvm_lock.
> > >
> > >  ``kvm->mn_invalidate_lock``
> > >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > index fc55447c4dba..082d5dbc8d7f 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > @@ -100,7 +100,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(halt_poll_ns_shrink);
> > >   */
> > >
> > >  DEFINE_MUTEX(kvm_lock);
> > > -static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(kvm_count_lock);
> > >  LIST_HEAD(vm_list);
> > >
> > >  static cpumask_var_t cpus_hardware_enabled;
> > > @@ -4996,6 +4995,8 @@ static void hardware_enable_nolock(void *caller_name)
> > >  	int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> > >  	int r;
> > >
> > > +	WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible());
> > 
> > This looks incorrect, it may triggers everytime when online CPU.
> > Because patch 7 moved CPUHP_AP_KVM_STARTING *AFTER*
> > CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_IDLE as CPUHP_AP_KVM_ONLINE, then cpuhp_thread_fun()
> > runs the new CPUHP_AP_KVM_ONLINE in *non-atomic* context:
> > 
> > cpuhp_thread_fun(unsigned int cpu) {
> > ...
> > 	if (cpuhp_is_atomic_state(state)) {
> > 		local_irq_disable();
> > 		st->result = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, state, bringup, st->node, &st->last);
> > 		local_irq_enable();
> > 
> > 		WARN_ON_ONCE(st->result);
> > 	} else {
> > 		st->result = cpuhp_invoke_callback(cpu, state, bringup, st->node, &st->last);
> > 	}
> > ...
> > }
> > 
> > static bool cpuhp_is_atomic_state(enum cpuhp_state state)
> > {
> > 	return CPUHP_AP_IDLE_DEAD <= state && state < CPUHP_AP_ONLINE;
> > }
> > 
> > The hardware_enable_nolock() now is called in 2 cases:
> > 1. in atomic context by on_each_cpu().
> > 2. From non-atomic context by CPU hotplug thread.
> > 
> > so how about "WARN_ONCE(preemptible() && cpu_active(cpu))" ?
> 
> I suspect similar changes must be applied to the arm64 side (though
> I'm still looking for a good definition of cpu_active()).

It seems plausible. I tested cpu online/offline on x86. Let me update arm64 code
too.

-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>