linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: x86: move sev_lock/unlock_vcpus_for_migration to 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: <20250416185001.GA38216@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2025 20:50:01 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
	Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Kunkun Jiang <jiangkunkun@...wei.com>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
	Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Alexandre Ghiti <alex@...ti.fr>,
	Keisuke Nishimura <keisuke.nishimura@...ia.fr>,
	Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
	Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@....com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: x86: move
 sev_lock/unlock_vcpus_for_migration to kvm_main.c

On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 07:48:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/10/25 10:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 08, 2025 at 09:41:34PM -0400, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > index 69782df3617f..71c0d8c35b4b 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > > @@ -1368,6 +1368,77 @@ static int kvm_vm_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
> > >   	return 0;
> > >   }
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Lock all VM vCPUs.
> > > + * Can be used nested (to lock vCPUS of two VMs for example)
> > > + */
> > > +int kvm_lock_all_vcpus_nested(struct kvm *kvm, bool trylock, unsigned int role)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > +	unsigned long i, j;
> > > +
> > > +	lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> > > +
> > > +	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > +
> > > +		if (trylock && !mutex_trylock_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role))
> > > +			goto out_unlock;
> > > +		else if (!trylock && mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role))
> > > +			goto out_unlock;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING
> > > +		if (!i)
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * Reset the role to one that avoids colliding with
> > > +			 * the role used for the first vcpu mutex.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			role = MAX_LOCK_DEPTH - 1;
> > > +		else
> > > +			mutex_release(&vcpu->mutex.dep_map, _THIS_IP_);
> > > +#endif
> > > +	}
> > 
> > This code is all sorts of terrible.
> > 
> > Per the lockdep_assert_held() above, you serialize all these locks by
> > holding that lock, this means you can be using the _nest_lock()
> > annotation.
> > 
> > Also, the original code didn't have this trylock nonsense, and the
> > Changelog doesn't mention this -- in fact the Changelog claims no
> > change, which is patently false.
> > 
> > Anyway, please write like:
> > 
> > 	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > 		if (mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock(&vcpu->mutex, &kvm->lock))
> > 			goto unlock;
> > 	}
> > 
> > 	return 0;
> > 
> > unlock:
> > 
> > 	kvm_for_each_vcpu(j, vcpu, kvm) {
> > 		if (j == i)
> > 			break;
> > 
> > 		mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
> > 	}
> > 	return -EINTR;
> > 
> > And yes, you'll have to add mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock(), but that
> > should be trivial.
> 
> If I understand correctly, that would be actually
> _mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock() plus a wrapper macro.  But yes,
> that is easy so it sounds good.
> 
> For the ARM case, which is the actual buggy one (it was complaining
> about too high a depth) it still needs mutex_trylock_nest_lock();
> the nest_lock is needed to avoid bumping the depth on every
> mutex_trylock().

Got a link to the ARM code in question ? And I'm assuming you're talking
about task_struct::lockdep_depth ? The nest lock annotation does not
in fact increment depth beyond one of each type. It does a refcount like
thing.