From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: Optimize kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask() a bit
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:03:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y28sk2ot.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YR/yTDZR29AhKw6M@google.com>
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Iterating over set bits in 'vcpu_bitmap' should be faster than going
>> through all vCPUs, especially when just a few bits are set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
>> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index 3e67c93ca403..0f873c5ed538 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -257,34 +257,49 @@ static inline bool kvm_kick_many_cpus(const struct cpumask *cpus, bool wait)
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> +static void kvm_make_vcpu_request(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> + unsigned int req, cpumask_var_t tmp)
>> +{
>> + int cpu = vcpu->cpu;
>
> This reminds me, syzbot found a data race a while back[*] in kvm_vcpu_kick()
> related to reading vcpu->cpu. That race is benign, but legitimate. I believe
> this code has a similar race, and I'm not as confident that it's benign.
>
> If the target vCPU changes vcpu->cpu after it's read by this code, then the IPI
> can sent to the wrong pCPU, e.g. this pCPU gets waylaid by an IRQ and the target
> vCPU is migrated to a new pCPU.
>
> The TL;DR is that the race is benign because the target vCPU is still guaranteed
> to see the request before entering the guest, even if the IPI goes to the wrong
> pCPU. I believe the same holds true for KVM_REQUEST_WAIT, e.g. if the lockless
> shadow PTE walk gets migrated to a new pCPU just before setting vcpu->mode to
> READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES, this code can use a stale "cpu" for __cpumask_set_cpu().
> The race is benign because the vCPU would have to enter READING_SHADOW_PAGE_TABLES
> _after_ the SPTE modifications were made, as vcpu->cpu can't change while the vCPU
> is reading SPTEs. The same logic holds true for the case where the vCPU is migrated
> after the call to __cpumask_set_cpu(); the goal is to wait for the vCPU to return to
> OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE, which is guaranteed if the vCPU is migrated even if this path
> doesn't wait for an ack from the _new_ pCPU.
>
> I'll send patches to fix the races later today, maybe they can be folded into
> v2? Even though the races are benign, I think they're worth fixing, if only to
> provide an opportunity to document why it's ok to send IPIs to the
> wrong pCPU.
You're blazingly fast as usual :-) I'll do v2 on top of your patches.
>
> [*] On an upstream kernel, but I don't think the bug report was posted to LKML.
>
>> +
>> + kvm_make_request(req, vcpu);
>> +
>> + if (!(req & KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP) && kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + if (tmp != NULL && cpu != -1 && cpu != raw_smp_processor_id() &&
>
> For large VMs, might be worth keeping get_cpu() in the caller in passing in @me?
The only reason against was that I've tried keeping the newly introduced
kvm_make_vcpu_request()'s interface nicer, like it can be reused some
day. Will get back to get_cpu() in v2.
>
>> + kvm_request_needs_ipi(vcpu, req))
>> + __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmp);
>> +}
>> +
>> bool kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req,
>> struct kvm_vcpu *except,
>> unsigned long *vcpu_bitmap, cpumask_var_t tmp)
>> {
>> - int i, cpu, me;
>> + int i;
>> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>> bool called;
>>
>> - me = get_cpu();
>> -
>> - kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> - if ((vcpu_bitmap && !test_bit(i, vcpu_bitmap)) ||
>> - vcpu == except)
>> - continue;
>> -
>> - kvm_make_request(req, vcpu);
>> - cpu = vcpu->cpu;
>> -
>> - if (!(req & KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP) && kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
>> - continue;
>> + preempt_disable();
>>
>> - if (tmp != NULL && cpu != -1 && cpu != me &&
>> - kvm_request_needs_ipi(vcpu, req))
>> - __cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, tmp);
>> + if (likely(vcpu_bitmap)) {
>
> I don't think this is actually "likely". kvm_make_all_cpus_request() is by far
> the most common caller and does not pass in a vcpu_bitmap. Practically speaking
> I highly don't the code organization will matter, but from a documentation
> perspective it's wrong.
Right, I was thinking more about two other users: IOAPIC and Hyper-V who
call kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask() directly but I agree that
kvm_make_all_cpus_request() is probably much more common.
>
>> + for_each_set_bit(i, vcpu_bitmap, KVM_MAX_VCPUS) {
>> + vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, i);
>> + if (!vcpu || vcpu == except)
>> + continue;
>> + kvm_make_vcpu_request(kvm, vcpu, req, tmp);
>> + }
>> + } else {
>> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> + if (vcpu == except)
>> + continue;
>> + kvm_make_vcpu_request(kvm, vcpu, req, tmp);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> called = kvm_kick_many_cpus(tmp, !!(req & KVM_REQUEST_WAIT));
>> - put_cpu();
>> +
>> + preempt_enable();
>>
>> return called;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>
--
Vitaly
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-23 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-20 12:43 [PATCH 1/2] KVM: Optimize kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask() a bit Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-08-20 12:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: x86: Fix stack-out-of-bounds memory access from ioapic_write_indirect() Vitaly Kuznetsov
2021-08-20 18:19 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: Optimize kvm_make_vcpus_request_mask() a bit Sean Christopherson
2021-08-23 8:03 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87y28sk2ot.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com \
--to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nitesh@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=wanpengli@tencent.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.