linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Potential deadlock in vgic
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 18:26:59 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180504162659.GB14663@hc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180504151740.12165-1-andre.przywara@arm.com>

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 04:17:40PM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> can you please test this patch with your setup, to see if it still
> screams? That converts two forgotten irq_lock's over to be irqsafe,
> plus lets lpi_list_lock join them (which you already did, IIUC).
> That should appease lockdep, hopefully.

Hi Andre,

that solves the issue for me, no more lockdep complains.

thanks!
Jan

> Cheers,
> Andre.
> ---
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c |  5 +++--
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c   | 15 +++++++++------
>  virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c       | 12 +++++++-----
>  3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c
> index 10b38178cff2..4ffc0b5e6105 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-debug.c
> @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static int vgic_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v)
>  	struct vgic_state_iter *iter = (struct vgic_state_iter *)v;
>  	struct vgic_irq *irq;
>  	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = NULL;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (iter->dist_id == 0) {
>  		print_dist_state(s, &kvm->arch.vgic);
> @@ -227,9 +228,9 @@ static int vgic_debug_show(struct seq_file *s, void *v)
>  		irq = &kvm->arch.vgic.spis[iter->intid - VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS];
>  	}
>  
> -	spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags);
>  	print_irq_state(s, irq, vcpu);
> -	spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> index a8f07243aa9f..51a80b600632 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static struct vgic_irq *vgic_add_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, u32 intid,
>  {
>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>  	struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(kvm, NULL, intid), *oldirq;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* In this case there is no put, since we keep the reference. */
> @@ -71,7 +72,7 @@ static struct vgic_irq *vgic_add_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, u32 intid,
>  	irq->intid = intid;
>  	irq->target_vcpu = vcpu;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * There could be a race with another vgic_add_lpi(), so we need to
> @@ -99,7 +100,7 @@ static struct vgic_irq *vgic_add_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, u32 intid,
>  	dist->lpi_list_count++;
>  
>  out_unlock:
> -	spin_unlock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We "cache" the configuration table entries in our struct vgic_irq's.
> @@ -315,6 +316,7 @@ static int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr)
>  {
>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
>  	struct vgic_irq *irq;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  	u32 *intids;
>  	int irq_count, i = 0;
>  
> @@ -330,7 +332,7 @@ static int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr)
>  	if (!intids)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  	list_for_each_entry(irq, &dist->lpi_list_head, lpi_list) {
>  		if (i == irq_count)
>  			break;
> @@ -339,7 +341,7 @@ static int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr)
>  			continue;
>  		intids[i++] = irq->intid;
>  	}
> -	spin_unlock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	*intid_ptr = intids;
>  	return i;
> @@ -348,10 +350,11 @@ static int vgic_copy_lpi_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 **intid_ptr)
>  static int update_affinity(struct vgic_irq *irq, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	int ret = 0;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&irq->irq_lock, flags);
>  	irq->target_vcpu = vcpu;
> -	spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&irq->irq_lock, flags);
>  
>  	if (irq->hw) {
>  		struct its_vlpi_map map;
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> index 5f52a2bca36f..6efcddfb5167 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic.c
> @@ -75,8 +75,9 @@ static struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, u32 intid)
>  {
>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>  	struct vgic_irq *irq = NULL;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry(irq, &dist->lpi_list_head, lpi_list) {
>  		if (irq->intid != intid)
> @@ -92,7 +93,7 @@ static struct vgic_irq *vgic_get_lpi(struct kvm *kvm, u32 intid)
>  	irq = NULL;
>  
>  out_unlock:
> -	spin_unlock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	return irq;
>  }
> @@ -137,19 +138,20 @@ static void vgic_irq_release(struct kref *ref)
>  void vgic_put_irq(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_irq *irq)
>  {
>  	struct vgic_dist *dist = &kvm->arch.vgic;
> +	unsigned long flags;
>  
>  	if (irq->intid < VGIC_MIN_LPI)
>  		return;
>  
> -	spin_lock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  	if (!kref_put(&irq->refcount, vgic_irq_release)) {
> -		spin_unlock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  		return;
>  	};
>  
>  	list_del(&irq->lpi_list);
>  	dist->lpi_list_count--;
> -	spin_unlock(&dist->lpi_list_lock);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dist->lpi_list_lock, flags);
>  
>  	kfree(irq);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.14.1

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-04 16:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-04 11:03 Potential deadlock in vgic Jan Glauber
2018-05-04 12:47 ` Christoffer Dall
2018-05-04 13:08   ` Jan Glauber
2018-05-04 13:41     ` Marc Zyngier
2018-05-04 14:51     ` Andre Przywara
2018-05-04 15:17     ` Andre Przywara
2018-05-04 16:26       ` Jan Glauber [this message]
2018-05-04 16:29         ` Andre Przywara
2018-05-04 16:31       ` Jan Glauber
2018-05-11 14:29         ` Andre Przywara
2018-05-15 11:54           ` Jan Glauber

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=20180504162659.GB14663@hc \
    --to=jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).