| 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: <20220906024643.ti66dw2y6m6jgch2@yy-desk-7060>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2022 10:46:43 +0800
From: Yuan Yao <yuan.yao@...ux.intel.com>
To: isaku.yamahata@...el.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, 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 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))" ?
> +
> if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled))
> return;
>
> @@ -5019,7 +5020,7 @@ static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - raw_spin_lock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);
> /*
> * Abort the CPU online process if hardware virtualization cannot
> * be enabled. Otherwise running VMs would encounter unrecoverable
> @@ -5034,7 +5035,7 @@ static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> ret = -EIO;
> }
> }
> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -5042,6 +5043,8 @@ static void hardware_disable_nolock(void *junk)
> {
> int cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(preemptible());
Ditto.
> +
> if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled))
> return;
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, cpus_hardware_enabled);
> @@ -5050,10 +5053,10 @@ static void hardware_disable_nolock(void *junk)
>
> static int kvm_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - raw_spin_lock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);
> if (kvm_usage_count)
> hardware_disable_nolock(NULL);
> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -5068,9 +5071,11 @@ static void hardware_disable_all_nolock(void)
>
> static void hardware_disable_all(void)
> {
> - raw_spin_lock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + cpus_read_lock();
> + mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);
> hardware_disable_all_nolock();
> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> + cpus_read_unlock();
> }
>
> static int hardware_enable_all(void)
> @@ -5088,7 +5093,7 @@ static int hardware_enable_all(void)
> * Disable CPU hotplug to prevent this case from happening.
> */
> cpus_read_lock();
> - raw_spin_lock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&kvm_lock);
>
> kvm_usage_count++;
> if (kvm_usage_count == 1) {
> @@ -5101,7 +5106,7 @@ static int hardware_enable_all(void)
> }
> }
>
> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm_count_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm_lock);
> cpus_read_unlock();
>
> return r;
> @@ -5708,8 +5713,15 @@ static void kvm_init_debug(void)
>
> static int kvm_suspend(void)
> {
> - if (kvm_usage_count)
> + /*
> + * The caller ensures that CPU hotlug is disabled by
> + * cpu_hotplug_disable() and other CPUs are offlined. No need for
> + * locking.
> + */
> + if (kvm_usage_count) {
> + lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_lock);
> hardware_disable_nolock(NULL);
> + }
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -5723,7 +5735,7 @@ static void kvm_resume(void)
> return; /* FIXME: disable KVM */
>
> if (kvm_usage_count) {
> - lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_count_lock);
> + lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_lock);
> hardware_enable_nolock((void *)__func__);
> }
> }
> --
> 2.25.1
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists