[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd4b8286774df98d58b5048e380b10d4de5836af.camel@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 10:12:03 +0000
From: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>
To: "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "hou, wenlong"
<houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
CC: "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com"
<seanjc@...gle.com>, "Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] KVM: Disable IRQs in
kvm_online_cpu()/kvm_offline_cpu()
On Tue, 2025-09-16 at 14:07 +0800, Hou Wenlong wrote:
> After the commit aaf12a7b4323 ("KVM: Rename and move
> CPUHP_AP_KVM_STARTING to ONLINE section"), KVM's hotplug callbacks have
> been moved into the ONLINE section, where IRQs and preemption are
> enabled according to the documentation. However, if IRQs are not
> guaranteed to be disabled, it could theoretically be a bug, because
> virtualization_enabled may be stale (with respect to the actual state of
> the hardware) when read from IRQ context, making the callback
> potentially reentrant. Therefore, disable IRQs in kvm_online_cpu() and
> kvm_offline_cpu() to ensure that all paths for
> kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu() and kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() are
> in an IRQ-disabled state.
Reading the v1 thread [*], IIUC the "virtualization_enabled being stale
when read from IRQ context" is referring to the case where
kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() got interrupted by IRQ and re-entered.
But IIUC this shouldn't happen. If I am not missing anything, the
syscore_shutdown() (from which KVM sends IRQ to call
kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu()) is always called after
migrate_to_reboot_cpu(), which internally waits for currently running CPU
hotplug to complete (if any) and disables future CPU hotplug. Therefore
it shouldn't be possible that kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu() could be
interrupted and re-entered via IRQ.
I don't oppose this code change, but I think this should somehow
documented in the changelog, if I am not missing anything?
[*]: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/aMirvo9Xly5fVmbY@google.com/
>
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@...group.com>
> ---
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 18f29ef93543..cf8dddeed37e 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -5580,6 +5580,8 @@ __weak void kvm_arch_disable_virtualization(void)
>
> static int kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu(void)
> {
> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> +
> if (__this_cpu_read(virtualization_enabled))
> return 0;
>
> @@ -5595,6 +5597,8 @@ static int kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu(void)
>
> static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + guard(irqsave)();
> +
> /*
> * Abort the CPU online process if hardware virtualization cannot
> * be enabled. Otherwise running VMs would encounter unrecoverable
> @@ -5605,6 +5609,8 @@ static int kvm_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
>
> static void kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(void *ign)
> {
> + lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
> +
> if (!__this_cpu_read(virtualization_enabled))
> return;
>
> @@ -5615,6 +5621,8 @@ static void kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(void *ign)
>
> static int kvm_offline_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + guard(irqsave)();
> +
> kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(NULL);
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -5648,7 +5656,6 @@ static int kvm_suspend(void)
> * dropped all locks (userspace tasks are frozen via a fake signal).
> */
> lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_usage_lock);
> - lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> kvm_disable_virtualization_cpu(NULL);
> return 0;
> @@ -5657,7 +5664,6 @@ static int kvm_suspend(void)
> static void kvm_resume(void)
> {
> lockdep_assert_not_held(&kvm_usage_lock);
> - lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled();
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(kvm_enable_virtualization_cpu());
> }
>
> base-commit: a6ad54137af92535cfe32e19e5f3bc1bb7dbd383
Powered by blists - more mailing lists