| 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: <4bfe7a8f5020448e903e6335173afc75@baidu.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 02:56:22 +0000
From: "Li,Rongqing" <lirongqing@...du.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "kvm@...r.kernel.org"
<kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Li,Zhaoxin(ACG CCN)" <lizhaoxin04@...du.com>
Subject: 答复: [????] Re: [PATCH] KVM: Use call_rcu() in kvm_io_bus_register_dev
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2025, lirongqing wrote:
> > From: Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
> >
> > Use call_rcu() instead of costly synchronize_srcu_expedited(), this
> > can reduce the VM bootup time, and reduce VM migration downtime
> >
> > Signed-off-by: lizhaoxin <lizhaoxin04@...du.com>
>
> If lizhaoxin is a co-author, then this needs:
>
> Co-developed-by: lizhaoxin <lizhaoxin04@...du.com>
>
Thanks, I will add
> If they are _the_ author, then the From: above is wrong.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@...du.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h index
> > 291d49b..e772704 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -203,6 +203,7 @@ struct kvm_io_range { #define NR_IOBUS_DEVS
> 1000
> >
> > struct kvm_io_bus {
> > + struct rcu_head rcu;
> > int dev_count;
> > int ioeventfd_count;
> > struct kvm_io_range range[];
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c index
> > 2e591cc..af730a5 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -5865,6 +5865,13 @@ int kvm_io_bus_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
> > return r < 0 ? r : 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static void free_kvm_io_bus(struct rcu_head *rcu) {
> > + struct kvm_io_bus *bus = container_of(rcu, struct kvm_io_bus, rcu);
> > +
> > + kfree(bus);
> > +}
> > +
> > int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx,
> gpa_t addr,
> > int len, struct kvm_io_device *dev) { @@ -5903,8 +5910,8
> @@
> > int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t
> addr,
> > memcpy(new_bus->range + i + 1, bus->range + i,
> > (bus->dev_count - i) * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range));
> > rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->buses[bus_idx], new_bus);
> > - synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
> > - kfree(bus);
> > +
> > + call_srcu(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, free_kvm_io_bus);
>
> I don't think this is safe from a functional correctness perspective, as KVM must
> guarantee all readers see the new device before KVM returns control to
> userspace.
> E.g. I'm pretty sure KVM_REGISTER_COALESCED_MMIO is used while vCPUs are
> active.
>
> However, I'm pretty sure the only readers that actually rely on SRCU are vCPUs,
> so I _think_ the synchronize_srcu_expedited() is necessary if and only if vCPUs
> have been created.
>
> That could race with concurrent vCPU creation in a few flows that don't take
> kvm->lock, but that should be ok from an ABI perspective. False
> kvm->positives (vCPU
> creation fails) are benign, and false negatives (vCPU created after the check) are
> inherently racy, i.e. userspace can't guarantee the vCPU sees any particular
> ordering.
>
> So this?
>
> if (READ_ONCE(kvm->created_vcpus)) {
> synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
> kfree(bus);
> } else {
> call_srcu(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, free_kvm_io_bus);
> }
If call_srcu is able to used only before creating vCPU, the upper will have little effect, since most device are created after creating vCPU
We want to optimize the ioeventfd creation, since a VM will create lots of ioeventfd, can ioeventfd uses call_srcu?
Like:
--- a/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/eventfd.c
@@ -853,8 +853,8 @@ static int kvm_assign_ioeventfd_idx(struct kvm *kvm,
kvm_iodevice_init(&p->dev, &ioeventfd_ops);
- ret = kvm_io_bus_register_dev(kvm, bus_idx, p->addr, p->length,
- &p->dev);
+ ret = __kvm_io_bus_register_dev(kvm, bus_idx, p->addr, p->length,
+ &p->dev, false);
if (ret < 0)
goto unlock_fail;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 2e591cc..ff294b0 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -5865,8 +5865,15 @@ int kvm_io_bus_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
return r < 0 ? r : 0;
}
-int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
- int len, struct kvm_io_device *dev)
+static void free_kvm_io_bus(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+ struct kvm_io_bus *bus = container_of(rcu, struct kvm_io_bus, rcu);
+
+ kfree(bus);
+}
+
+int __kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
+ int len, struct kvm_io_device *dev, bool sync)
{
int i;
struct kvm_io_bus *new_bus, *bus;
@@ -5903,12 +5910,22 @@ int kvm_io_bus_register_dev(struct kvm *kvm, enum kvm_bus bus_idx, gpa_t addr,
memcpy(new_bus->range + i + 1, bus->range + i,
(bus->dev_count - i) * sizeof(struct kvm_io_range));
rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->buses[bus_idx], new_bus);
- synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
- kfree(bus);
+
+ if (sync) {
+ synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
+ kfree(bus);
+ }
+ else
+ call_srcu(&kvm->srcu, &bus->rcu, free_kvm_io_bus);
return 0;
}
Thanks
-Li
Powered by blists - more mailing lists