linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: fix lockdep warning on posted intr wakeup

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: <ZAtiEO/DST05GRRN@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 10 Mar 2023 09:00:00 -0800
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To:     Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: fix lockdep warning on posted intr wakeup

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023, Yan Zhao wrote:
> Use rcu list to break the possible circular locking dependency reported
> by lockdep.
> 
> path 1, ``sysvec_kvm_posted_intr_wakeup_ipi()`` --> ``pi_wakeup_handler()``
>          -->  ``kvm_vcpu_wake_up()`` --> ``try_to_wake_up()``,
>          the lock sequence is
>          &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu) --> &p->pi_lock.

Heh, that's an unfortunate naming collision.  It took me a bit of staring to
realize pi_lock is a scheduler lock, not a posted interrupt lock.

> path 2, ``schedule()`` --> ``kvm_sched_out()`` --> ``vmx_vcpu_put()`` -->
>         ``vmx_vcpu_pi_put()`` --> ``pi_enable_wakeup_handler()``,
>          the lock sequence is
>          &rq->__lock --> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu).
> 
> path 3, ``task_rq_lock()``,
>         the lock sequence is &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock
> 
> lockdep report:
>  Chain exists of:
>    &p->pi_lock --> &rq->__lock --> &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu)
> 
>   Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> 
>         CPU0                CPU1
>         ----                ----
>    lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
>                             lock(&rq->__lock);
>                             lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu));
>    lock(&p->pi_lock);
> 
>   *** DEADLOCK ***

I don't think there's a deadlock here.  pi_wakeup_handler() is called from IRQ
context, pi_enable_wakeup_handler() disable IRQs before acquiring
wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, and "cpu" in pi_enable_wakeup_handler() is guaranteed
to be the current CPU, i.e. the same CPU.  So CPU0 and CPU1 can't be contending
for the same wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock in this scenario.

vmx_vcpu_pi_load() does do cross-CPU locking, but finish_task_switch() drops
rq->__lock before invoking the sched_in notifiers.

> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c | 12 +++++-------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> index 94c38bea60e7..e3ffc45c0a7b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ void vmx_vcpu_pi_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>  	 */
>  	if (pi_desc->nv == POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR) {
>  		raw_spin_lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
> -		list_del(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list);
> +		list_del_rcu(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list);
>  		raw_spin_unlock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));

_If_ there is indeed a possible deadlock, there technically needs to be an explicit 
synchonize_rcu() before freeing the vCPU.  In practice, there are probably multiple
synchonize_rcu() calls in the destruction path, not to mention that it would take a
minor miracle for pi_wakeup_handler() to get stalled long enough to achieve a
use-after-free.

>  	}
>  
> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ static void pi_enable_wakeup_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  
>  	raw_spin_lock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));
> -	list_add_tail(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list,
> +	list_add_tail_rcu(&vmx->pi_wakeup_list,
>  		      &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu, vcpu->cpu));
>  	raw_spin_unlock(&per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->cpu));


> @@ -219,16 +219,14 @@ void pi_wakeup_handler(void)
>  {
>  	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>  	struct list_head *wakeup_list = &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu, cpu);
> -	raw_spinlock_t *spinlock = &per_cpu(wakeup_vcpus_on_cpu_lock, cpu);
>  	struct vcpu_vmx *vmx;
>  
> -	raw_spin_lock(spinlock);
> -	list_for_each_entry(vmx, wakeup_list, pi_wakeup_list) {
> -
> +	rcu_read_lock();

This isn't strictly necessary, IRQs are disabled.

> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(vmx, wakeup_list, pi_wakeup_list) {
>  		if (pi_test_on(&vmx->pi_desc))
>  			kvm_vcpu_wake_up(&vmx->vcpu);
>  	}
> -	raw_spin_unlock(spinlock);
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }
>  
>  void __init pi_init_cpu(int cpu)
> 
> base-commit: 89400df96a7570b651404bbc3b7afe627c52a192
> -- 
> 2.17.1
>