From: Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>,
Jared Rossi <jrossi@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Eric Farman <farman@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] vfio-ccw: Fix interrupt handling for HALT/CLEAR
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:24:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210413182410.1396170-1-farman@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
Hi Conny, Halil,
Let's restart our discussion about the collision between interrupts for
START SUBCHANNEL and HALT/CLEAR SUBCHANNEL. It's been a quarter million
minutes (give or take), so here is the problematic scenario again:
CPU 1 CPU 2
1 CLEAR SUBCHANNEL
2 fsm_irq()
3 START SUBCHANNEL
4 vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo()
5 fsm_irq()
6 vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo()
From the channel subsystem's point of view the CLEAR SUBCHANNEL (step 1)
is complete once step 2 is called, as the Interrupt Response Block (IRB)
has been presented and the TEST SUBCHANNEL was driven by the cio layer.
Thus, the START SUBCHANNEL (step 3) is submitted [1] and gets a cc=0 to
indicate the I/O was accepted. However, step 2 stacks the bulk of the
actual work onto a workqueue for when the subchannel lock is NOT held,
and is unqueued at step 4. That code misidentifies the data in the IRB
as being associated with the newly active I/O, and may release memory
that is actively in use by the channel subsystem and/or device. Eww.
In this version...
Patch 1 and 2 are defensive checks. Patch 2 was part of v3 [2], but I
would love a better option here to guard between steps 2 and 4.
Patch 3 is a subset of the removal of the CP_PENDING FSM state in v3.
I've obviously gone away from this idea, but I thought this piece is
still valuable.
Patch 4 collapses the code on the interrupt path so that changes to
the FSM state and the channel_program struct are handled at the same
point, rather than separated by a mutex boundary. Because of the
possibility of a START and HALT/CLEAR running concurrently, it does
not make sense to split them here.
With the above patches, maybe it then makes sense to hold the io_mutex
across the entirety of vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(). But I'm not completely
sure that would be acceptable.
So... Thoughts?
Thanks,
Eric
Previous versions:
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200616195053.99253-1-farman@linux.ibm.com/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200513142934.28788-1-farman@linux.ibm.com/
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200124145455.51181-1-farman@linux.ibm.com/
Footnotes:
[1] Halil correctly asserts that today's QEMU should prohibit this, but I
still have not looked into why. The above is the sequence that is
occurring in the kernel, and we shouldn't rely on a well-behaved
userspace to enforce things for us. It is still on my list for further
investigation, but it's lower in priority.
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200619134005.512fc54f.cohuck@redhat.com/
Eric Farman (4):
vfio-ccw: Check initialized flag in cp_init()
vfio-ccw: Check workqueue before doing START
vfio-ccw: Reset FSM state to IDLE inside FSM
vfio-ccw: Reset FSM state to IDLE before io_mutex
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_cp.c | 4 ++++
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 7 +++----
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_fsm.c | 6 ++++++
drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_ops.c | 2 --
4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
next reply other threads:[~2021-04-13 18:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-13 18:24 Eric Farman [this message]
2021-04-13 18:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/4] vfio-ccw: Check initialized flag in cp_init() Eric Farman
2021-04-14 16:30 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-13 18:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/4] vfio-ccw: Check workqueue before doing START Eric Farman
2021-04-15 10:51 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-15 13:48 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-15 16:19 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-15 18:42 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-16 14:41 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-13 18:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 3/4] vfio-ccw: Reset FSM state to IDLE inside FSM Eric Farman
2021-04-15 10:54 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-13 18:24 ` [RFC PATCH v4 4/4] vfio-ccw: Reset FSM state to IDLE before io_mutex Eric Farman
2021-04-21 10:25 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-21 12:58 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-22 16:16 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-22 0:52 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] vfio-ccw: Fix interrupt handling for HALT/CLEAR Halil Pasic
2021-04-22 20:49 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-23 11:06 ` Cornelia Huck
2021-04-23 13:23 ` Halil Pasic
2021-04-23 13:28 ` Niklas Schnelle
2021-04-23 15:53 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-23 11:50 ` Halil Pasic
2021-04-23 15:53 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-23 17:08 ` Halil Pasic
2021-04-23 19:07 ` Eric Farman
2021-04-24 0:18 ` Halil Pasic
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=20210413182410.1396170-1-farman@linux.ibm.com \
--to=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=jrossi@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox