netdev - Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <11b2a930-eae4-522c-4132-3f8a2da05666@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:20:45 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier
 with worker


On 2019/8/2 下午8:46, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:40:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> This must be a proper barrier, like a spinlock, mutex, or
>>> synchronize_rcu.
>>
>> I start with synchronize_rcu() but both you and Michael raise some
>> concern.
> I've also idly wondered if calling synchronize_rcu() under the various
> mm locks is a deadlock situation.


Maybe, that's why I suggest to use vhost_work_flush() which is much 
lightweight can can achieve the same function. It can guarantee all 
previous work has been processed after vhost_work_flush() return.


>
>> Then I try spinlock and mutex:
>>
>> 1) spinlock: add lots of overhead on datapath, this leads 0 performance
>> improvement.
> I think the topic here is correctness not performance improvement


But the whole series is to speed up vhost.


>
>> 2) SRCU: full memory barrier requires on srcu_read_lock(), which still leads
>> little performance improvement
>   
>> 3) mutex: a possible issue is need to wait for the page to be swapped in (is
>> this unacceptable ?), another issue is that we need hold vq lock during
>> range overlap check.
> I have a feeling that mmu notififers cannot safely become dependent on
> progress of swap without causing deadlock. You probably should avoid
> this.


Yes, so that's why I try to synchronize the critical region by myself.


>>> And, again, you can't re-invent a spinlock with open coding and get
>>> something better.
>> So the question is if waiting for swap is considered to be unsuitable for
>> MMU notifiers. If not, it would simplify codes. If not, we still need to
>> figure out a possible solution.
>>
>> Btw, I come up another idea, that is to disable preemption when vhost thread
>> need to access the memory. Then register preempt notifier and if vhost
>> thread is preempted, we're sure no one will access the memory and can do the
>> cleanup.
> I think you should use the spinlock so at least the code is obviously
> functionally correct and worry about designing some properly justified
> performance change after.
>
> Jason


Spinlock is correct but make the whole series meaningless consider it 
won't bring any performance improvement.

Thanks