linux-kernel - [PATCH 1/3] KVM: Show lockdep the kvm->mutex vs. kvm->srcu ordering rule

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: <20230113124606.10221-2-dwmw2@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:46:04 +0000
From:   David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:     Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rcu@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, seanjc@...gle.com,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Michal Luczaj <mhal@...x.co>
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] KVM: Show lockdep the kvm->mutex vs. kvm->srcu ordering rule

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>

Lockdep is learning to spot deadlocks with sleepable RCU vs. mutexes,
which can occur where one code path calls synchronize_scru() with a
mutex held, while another code path attempts to obtain the same mutex
while in a read-side section.

Since lockdep isn't very good at reading the English prose in
Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst, give it a demonstration by calling
synchronize_scru(&kvm->srcu) while holding kvm->lock in kvm_create_vm().
The cases where this happens naturally are relatively esoteric and may
not happen otherwise.

Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>
---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 13e88297f999..285b3c5a6364 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1173,6 +1173,16 @@ static struct kvm *kvm_create_vm(unsigned long type, const char *fdname)
 	if (init_srcu_struct(&kvm->irq_srcu))
 		goto out_err_no_irq_srcu;
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
+	/*
+	 * Ensure lockdep knows that it's not permitted to lock kvm->lock
+	 * from a SRCU read section on kvm->srcu.
+	 */
+	mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+	synchronize_srcu(&kvm->srcu);
+	mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+#endif
+
 	refcount_set(&kvm->users_count, 1);
 	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++) {
 		for (j = 0; j < 2; j++) {
-- 
2.35.3