linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Explicitly implement vgic

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: <5zpxxmymnyzncdnewdonnglvmvbtggjyxyqvkf6yars2bbyr4b@gottasrtoq2s>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2025 10:15:56 +0800
From: Yao Yuan <yaoyuan0329os@...il.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Yao Yuan <yaoyuan@...ux.alibaba.com>, Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, 
	Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, 
	Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] KVM: arm64: vgic: Explicitly implement
 vgic_dist::ready ordering

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 08:00:17AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2025, Yao Yuan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:07:35AM +0800, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > > In preparation to remove synchronize_srcu() from MMIO registration,
> > > remove the distributor's dependency on this implicit barrier by
> > > direct acquire-release synchronization on the flag write and its
> > > lock-free check.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Keir Fraser <keirf@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 11 ++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > > index 502b65049703..bc83672e461b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > > @@ -567,7 +567,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >  	gpa_t dist_base;
> > >  	int ret = 0;
> > >
> > > -	if (likely(dist->ready))
> > > +	if (likely(smp_load_acquire(&dist->ready)))
> > >  		return 0;
> > >
> > >  	mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > @@ -598,14 +598,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_map_resources(struct kvm *kvm)
> > >  		goto out_slots;
> > >  	}
> > >
> > > -	/*
> > > -	 * kvm_io_bus_register_dev() guarantees all readers see the new MMIO
> > > -	 * registration before returning through synchronize_srcu(), which also
> > > -	 * implies a full memory barrier. As such, marking the distributor as
> > > -	 * 'ready' here is guaranteed to be ordered after all vCPUs having seen
> > > -	 * a completely configured distributor.
> > > -	 */
> > > -	dist->ready = true;
> > > +	smp_store_release(&dist->ready, true);
> >
> > No need the store-release and load-acquire for replacing
> > synchronize_srcu_expedited() w/ call_srcu() IIUC:
>
> This isn't about using call_srcu(), because it's not actually about kvm->buses.
> This code is concerned with ensuring that all stores to kvm->arch.vgic are ordered
> before the store to set kvm->arch.vgic.ready, so that vCPUs never see "ready==true"
> with a half-baked distributor.
>
> In the current code, kvm_vgic_map_resources() relies on the synchronize_srcu() in
> kvm_io_bus_register_dev() to provide the ordering guarantees.  Switching to
> smp_store_release() + smp_load_acquire() removes the dependency on the
> synchronize_srcu() so that the synchronize_srcu() call can be safely removed.

Yes, I understand this and agree with your point.

Just for discusstion: I thought it should also work even w/o
introduce the load acqure + store release after switch to
call_srcu(): The smp_mb() in call_srcu() order the all store
to kvm->arch.vgic before store kvm->arch.vgic.ready in
current implementation.

>