From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
To: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v5 01/38] KVM: arm64: Make lock_all_vcpus() available to the rest of KVM
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 10:34:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YguBtoUfy6Hkygt4@monolith.localdoman> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAeT=Fyy-DNg_uYPJFQopgc+h2VgOzeoZZLt5MByj7hgq1BGww@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Reiji,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 09:34:30PM -0800, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 7:37 AM Alexandru Elisei
> <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > The VGIC code uses the lock_all_vcpus() function to make sure no VCPUs are
> > run while it fiddles with the global VGIC state. Move the declaration of
> > lock_all_vcpus() and the corresponding unlock function into asm/kvm_host.h
> > where it can be reused by other parts of KVM/arm64 and rename the functions
> > to kvm_{lock,unlock}_all_vcpus() to make them more generic.
> >
> > Because the scope of the code potentially using the functions has
> > increased, add a lockdep check that the kvm->lock is held by the caller.
> > Holding the lock is necessary because otherwise userspace would be able to
> > create new VCPUs and run them while the existing VCPUs are locked.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 4 +--
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c | 8 ++---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 50 ++++-----------------------
> > arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h | 3 --
> > 6 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 2a5f7f38006f..733621e41900 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -606,6 +606,9 @@ int __kvm_arm_vcpu_set_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> > void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >
> > +bool kvm_lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm);
> > +void kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm);
> > +
> > #ifndef __KVM_NVHE_HYPERVISOR__
> > #define kvm_call_hyp_nvhe(f, ...) \
> > ({ \
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index 2f03cbfefe67..e9b4ad7b5c82 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -651,6 +651,47 @@ void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +/* unlocks vcpus from @vcpu_lock_idx and smaller */
> > +static void unlock_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_lock_idx)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > +
> > + for (; vcpu_lock_idx >= 0; vcpu_lock_idx--) {
> > + tmp_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, vcpu_lock_idx);
> > + mutex_unlock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +void kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> > + unlock_vcpus(kvm, atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) - 1);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/* Returns true if all vcpus were locked, false otherwise */
> > +bool kvm_lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > + int c;
> > +
> > + lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Any time a vcpu is run, vcpu_load is called which tries to grab the
> > + * vcpu->mutex. By grabbing the vcpu->mutex of all VCPUs we ensure that
>
> Nit: vcpu_load() doesn't try to grab the vcpu->mutex, but kvm_vcpu_ioctl()
> does (The original comment in lock_all_vcpus() was outdated).
Will change.
>
> Reviewed-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Thanks!
Alex
>
> Thanks,
> Reiji
>
>
> > + * no other VCPUs are run and it is safe to fiddle with KVM global
> > + * state.
> > + */
> > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(c, tmp_vcpu, kvm) {
> > + if (!mutex_trylock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex)) {
> > + unlock_vcpus(kvm, c - 1);
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void vcpu_req_sleep(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct rcuwait *wait = kvm_arch_vcpu_get_wait(vcpu);
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > index 0a06d0648970..cd045c7abde8 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c
> > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type)
> > return -ENODEV;
> >
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(kvm))
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(kvm))
> > return ret;
> >
> > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm, u32 type)
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.vgic.rd_regions);
> >
> > out_unlock:
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(kvm);
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > index 089fc2ffcb43..bc4197e87d95 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-its.c
> > @@ -2005,7 +2005,7 @@ static int vgic_its_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -2023,7 +2023,7 @@ static int vgic_its_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > } else {
> > *reg = region->its_read(dev->kvm, its, addr, len);
> > }
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -2668,7 +2668,7 @@ static int vgic_its_ctrl(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, u64 attr)
> > mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > mutex_lock(&its->its_lock);
> >
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(kvm)) {
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(kvm)) {
> > mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > @@ -2686,7 +2686,7 @@ static int vgic_its_ctrl(struct kvm *kvm, struct vgic_its *its, u64 attr)
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(kvm);
> > mutex_unlock(&its->its_lock);
> > mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > return ret;
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > index 0d000d2fe8d2..c5de904643cc 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> > @@ -305,44 +305,6 @@ int vgic_v2_parse_attr(struct kvm_device *dev, struct kvm_device_attr *attr,
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -/* unlocks vcpus from @vcpu_lock_idx and smaller */
> > -static void unlock_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm, int vcpu_lock_idx)
> > -{
> > - struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > -
> > - for (; vcpu_lock_idx >= 0; vcpu_lock_idx--) {
> > - tmp_vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, vcpu_lock_idx);
> > - mutex_unlock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex);
> > - }
> > -}
> > -
> > -void unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > -{
> > - unlock_vcpus(kvm, atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) - 1);
> > -}
> > -
> > -/* Returns true if all vcpus were locked, false otherwise */
> > -bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> > -{
> > - struct kvm_vcpu *tmp_vcpu;
> > - int c;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * Any time a vcpu is run, vcpu_load is called which tries to grab the
> > - * vcpu->mutex. By grabbing the vcpu->mutex of all VCPUs we ensure
> > - * that no other VCPUs are run and fiddle with the vgic state while we
> > - * access it.
> > - */
> > - kvm_for_each_vcpu(c, tmp_vcpu, kvm) {
> > - if (!mutex_trylock(&tmp_vcpu->mutex)) {
> > - unlock_vcpus(kvm, c - 1);
> > - return false;
> > - }
> > - }
> > -
> > - return true;
> > -}
> > -
> > /**
> > * vgic_v2_attr_regs_access - allows user space to access VGIC v2 state
> > *
> > @@ -373,7 +335,7 @@ static int vgic_v2_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > if (ret)
> > goto out;
> >
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -390,7 +352,7 @@ static int vgic_v2_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -539,7 +501,7 @@ static int vgic_v3_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > goto out;
> > }
> > @@ -589,7 +551,7 @@ static int vgic_v3_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > break;
> > }
> >
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> > return ret;
> > @@ -644,12 +606,12 @@ static int vgic_v3_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> > case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_SAVE_PENDING_TABLES:
> > mutex_lock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> >
> > - if (!lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > + if (!kvm_lock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm)) {
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> > return -EBUSY;
> > }
> > ret = vgic_v3_save_pending_tables(dev->kvm);
> > - unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > + kvm_unlock_all_vcpus(dev->kvm);
> > mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> > return ret;
> > }
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > index 3fd6c86a7ef3..e69c839a6941 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.h
> > @@ -255,9 +255,6 @@ int vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm);
> > void vgic_debug_init(struct kvm *kvm);
> > void vgic_debug_destroy(struct kvm *kvm);
> >
> > -bool lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm);
> > -void unlock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm);
> > -
> > static inline int vgic_v3_max_apr_idx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > struct vgic_cpu *cpu_if = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> > --
> > 2.33.1
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kvmarm mailing list
> > kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-15 10:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-17 15:38 [RFC PATCH v5 00/38] KVM: arm64: Add Statistical Profiling Extension (SPE) support Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 01/38] KVM: arm64: Make lock_all_vcpus() available to the rest of KVM Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-15 5:34 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-02-15 10:34 ` Alexandru Elisei [this message]
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 02/38] KVM: arm64: Add lock/unlock memslot user API Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-15 5:59 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-02-15 11:03 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-15 12:02 ` Marc Zyngier
2022-02-15 12:13 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-17 7:35 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-02-17 10:31 ` Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-18 4:41 ` Reiji Watanabe
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 03/38] KVM: arm64: Implement the memslot lock/unlock functionality Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-15 7:46 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-02-15 11:26 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 04/38] KVM: arm64: Defer CMOs for locked memslots until a VCPU is run Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-24 5:56 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-03-21 17:10 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 05/38] KVM: arm64: Perform CMOs on locked memslots when userspace resets VCPUs Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 06/38] KVM: arm64: Delay tag scrubbing for locked memslots until a VCPU runs Alexandru Elisei
2022-03-18 5:03 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-03-21 17:17 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 07/38] KVM: arm64: Unmap unlocked memslot from stage 2 if kvm_mmu_has_pending_ops() Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 08/38] KVM: arm64: Unlock memslots after stage 2 tables are freed Alexandru Elisei
2022-03-18 5:19 ` Reiji Watanabe
2022-03-21 17:29 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 09/38] KVM: arm64: Deny changes to locked memslots Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 10/38] KVM: Add kvm_warn{,_ratelimited} macros Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 11/38] KVM: arm64: Print a warning for unexpected faults on locked memslots Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 12/38] KVM: arm64: Allow userspace to lock and unlock memslots Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 13/38] KVM: arm64: Add CONFIG_KVM_ARM_SPE Kconfig option Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 14/38] KVM: arm64: Add SPE capability and VCPU feature Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 15/38] perf: arm_spe_pmu: Move struct arm_spe_pmu to a separate header file Alexandru Elisei
2022-07-05 16:57 ` Calvin Owens
2022-07-06 10:51 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 16/38] KVM: arm64: Allow SPE emulation when the SPE hardware is present Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 17/38] KVM: arm64: Allow userspace to set the SPE feature only if SPE " Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 18/38] KVM: arm64: Expose SPE version to guests Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 19/38] KVM: arm64: Do not run a VCPU on a CPU without SPE Alexandru Elisei
2022-01-10 11:40 ` Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 20/38] KVM: arm64: Add a new VCPU device control group for SPE Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 21/38] KVM: arm64: Add SPE VCPU device attribute to set the interrupt number Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 22/38] KVM: arm64: Add SPE VCPU device attribute to initialize SPE Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 23/38] KVM: arm64: debug: Configure MDCR_EL2 when a VCPU has SPE Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 24/38] KVM: arm64: Move accesses to MDCR_EL2 out of __{activate, deactivate}_traps_common Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 25/38] KVM: arm64: VHE: Change MDCR_EL2 at world switch if VCPU has SPE Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 26/38] KVM: arm64: Add SPE system registers to VCPU context Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 27/38] KVM: arm64: nVHE: Save PMSCR_EL1 to the host context Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 28/38] KVM: arm64: Rename DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_SPE -> DEBUG_SAVE_SPE_BUFFER flags Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 29/38] KVM: arm64: nVHE: Context switch SPE state if VCPU has SPE Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 30/38] KVM: arm64: VHE: " Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 31/38] KVM: arm64: Save/restore PMSNEVFR_EL1 on VCPU put/load Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 32/38] KVM: arm64: Allow guest to use physical timestamps if perfmon_capable() Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 33/38] KVM: arm64: Emulate SPE buffer management interrupt Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 34/38] KVM: arm64: Add an userspace API to stop a VCPU profiling Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 35/38] KVM: arm64: Implement " Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 36/38] KVM: arm64: Add PMSIDR_EL1 to the SPE register context Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 37/38] KVM: arm64: Make CONFIG_KVM_ARM_SPE depend on !CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING Alexandru Elisei
2021-11-17 15:38 ` [RFC PATCH v5 38/38] KVM: arm64: Allow userspace to enable SPE for guests Alexandru Elisei
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=YguBtoUfy6Hkygt4@monolith.localdoman \
--to=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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