Re: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: do not open code locks for VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM notification

Tony Krowiak
2021-07-15T14:39:00Z

On 7/15/21 9:44 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:41:56 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> First sorry for being this late with having a more serious look at the
> code.
>
>
>> @@ -270,6 +270,9 @@ static struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_enable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q,
>> * We take the matrix_dev lock to ensure serialization on queues and
>> * mediated device access.
>> *
>> + * Note: This function must be called with a read lock held on
>> + * vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem.
>> + *
>
> That is a fine synchronization for the pqap_hook, but I don't think it
> is sufficient for everything.
>
>
>> * Return 0 if we could handle the request inside KVM.
>> * otherwise, returns -EOPNOTSUPP to let QEMU handle the fault.
>> */
>> @@ -287,22 +290,12 @@ static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>
>> apqn = vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0xffff;
>> - mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> Here you drop a matrix_dev->lock critical section. And then
> you do all the interesting stuff. E.g.
> q = vfio_ap_get_queue(matrix_mdev, apqn);
> and
> vfio_ap_irq_enable(q, status & 0x07, vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[2]);.
> Since in vfio_ap_get_queue() we do the check if the queue belongs
> to the given guest, and examine the matrix (apm, aqm) I suppose
> that needs to be done holding a lock that protects the matrix,
> and to my best knowledge this is still matrix_dev->lock. It would
> probably make sense to convert matrix_dev->lock into an rw_semaphore,
> or to introduce a some new rwlock which protects less state in the
> future, but right now AFAICT it is still matrix_dev->lock.
>
> So I don't think this patch should pass review.

Good catch. In an earlier patch review, Jason G suggested locking the
kvm->lock
mutex outside of the kvm_arch_crypto_set_masks() and
kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks()
functions to resolve the lockdep splat resulting from locking the
matrix_dev->lock
mutex prior to the kvm->lock mutex. I believe this will allow me to remove
the kvm_busy/wait queue scenario without introducing a new rwsem.

>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>> if (!vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook)
>> goto out_unlock;
>> matrix_mdev = container_of(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook,
>> struct ap_matrix_mdev, pqap_hook);
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If the KVM pointer is in the process of being set, wait until the
>> - * process has completed.
>> - */
>> - wait_event_cmd(matrix_mdev->wait_for_kvm,
>> - !matrix_mdev->kvm_busy,
>> - mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock),
>> - mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock));
>> -
>> /* If the there is no guest using the mdev, there is nothing to do */
>> if (!matrix_mdev->kvm)
>> goto out_unlock;