linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 17/20] KVM: xen: don't block on pfncache locks in kvm_xen_set_evtchn

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]

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2024 20:21:33 -0800
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Paul Durrant <paul@....org>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 x86@...nel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,  Shuah Khan
 <shuah@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 17/20] KVM: xen: don't block on pfncache locks in
 kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast()

On Tue, 2024-02-06 at 20:17 -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > From: Paul Durrant <pdurrant@...zon.com>
> > 
> > As described in [1] compiling with CONFIG_PROVE_RAW_LOCK_NESTING shows that
> > kvm_xen_set_evtchn_fast() is blocking on pfncache locks in IRQ context.
> > There is only actually blocking with PREEMPT_RT because the locks will
> > turned into mutexes. There is no 'raw' version of rwlock_t that can be used
> > to avoid that, so use read_trylock() and treat failure to lock the same as
> > an invalid cache.
> 
> Are rwlocks fundamentally incapable of supporting a raw version?  Because that's
> the only argument I see for adding a hack like this.

I don't know about "fundamentally incapable", but there's no point in
adding them just for this, because the write lock is very rarely going
to be held, so it's not an issue to be falling back to the slow path.
And when the write lock *was* held, something often changed so we may
well be going back to the slow path anyway.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)