Re: [RFC v2 4/5] vfio-ccw: Don't call cp_free if we are processing a channel program

Farhan Ali
2019-07-10T16:10:28Z

On 07/10/2019 09:45 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 17:27:47 -0400
> Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/09/2019 10:21 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 09:46:51 -0400
>>> Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07/09/2019 06:16 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 8 Jul 2019 16:10:37 -0400
>>>>> Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a small window where it's possible that we could be working
>>>>>> on an interrupt (queued in the workqueue) and setting up a channel
>>>>>> program (i.e allocating memory, pinning pages, translating address).
>>>>>> This can lead to allocating and freeing the channel program at the
>>>>>> same time and can cause memory corruption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's not call cp_free if we are currently processing a channel program.
>>>>>> The only way we know for sure that we don't have a thread setting
>>>>>> up a channel program is when the state is set to VFIO_CCW_STATE_CP_PENDING.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we pinpoint a commit that introduced this bug, or has it been there
>>>>> since the beginning?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem was always there.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it became relevant with the async stuff. Because after the async
>>> stuff was added we start getting solicited interrupts that are not about
>>> channel program is done. At least this is how I remember the discussion.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>>>>> index 4e3a903..0357165 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>>>>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct *work)
>>>>>> (SCSW_ACTL_DEVACT | SCSW_ACTL_SCHACT));
>>>>>> if (scsw_is_solicited(&irb->scsw)) {
>>>>>> cp_update_scsw(&private->cp, &irb->scsw);
>>>>>> - if (is_final)
>>>>>> + if (is_final && private->state == VFIO_CCW_STATE_CP_PENDING)
>>>
>>> Ain't private->state potentially used by multiple threads of execution?
>>
>> yes
>>
>> One of the paths I can think of is a machine check from the host which
>> will ultimately call vfio_ccw_sch_event callback which could set state
>> to NOT_OPER or IDLE.
>
> Now I went through the machine check rabbit hole because I thought
> freeing the cp in there might be a good idea, but it's not that easy
> (who'd have thought...)

Thanks for taking a deeper look :)

>
> If I read the POP correctly, an IPI or IPR in the subchannel CRW will
> indicate that the subchannel has been restored to a state after an I/O
> reset; in particular, that means that the subchannel does not have any
> I/O pending. However, that does not seem to be the case e.g. for an IPM
> (the doc does not seem to be very clear on that, though.) We can't
> unconditionally do something, as we do not know what event we're being
> called for (please disregard the positively ancient "we're called for
> IPI" comment in css_process_crw(), I think I added that one in the
> Linux 2.4 or 2.5 timeframe...) tl;dr We can't rely on anything...

Yes, the CRW infrastructure in Linux does not convey the exact event
back to the subchannel driver.

>
>>
>>> Do we need to use atomic operations or external synchronization to avoid
>>> this being another gamble? Or am I missing something?
>>
>> I think we probably should think about atomic operations for
>> synchronizing the state (and it could be a separate add on patch?).
>
> +1 to thinking about some atomicity changes later.
>
>>
>> But for preventing 2 threads from stomping on the cp the check should be
>> enough, unless I am missing something?
>
> I think so. Plus, the patch is small enough that we can merge it right
> away, and figure out a more generic change later.

I will send out a v3 soon if no one else has any other suggestions.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> cp_free(&private->cp);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> mutex_lock(&private->io_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks for reviewing.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Farhan
>>>
>>>
>
>