From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: cohuck@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
jjherne@linux.ibm.com, jgg@nvidia.com,
alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com,
frankja@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com,
hca@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2021 10:24:47 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cb9883fb-8a4f-db8e-1349-cb078c7ba5e8@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b5ff6818-fb8c-3d50-2d2e-d3992be1644b@de.ibm.com>
On 6/14/21 3:51 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
> On 21.05.21 21:36, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> Fixes a memory leak in the mdev remove callback when invoked while the
>> mdev is in use by a KVM guest. Instead of returning -EBUSY from the
>> callback, a full cleanup of the resources allocated to the mdev is
>> performed because regardless of the value returned from the function,
>> the
>> mdev is removed from sysfs.
>>
>> The cleanup of resources allocated to the mdev may coincide with the
>> interception of the PQAP(AQIC) instruction in which case data needed to
>> handle the interception may get removed. A patch is included in this
>> series
>> to synchronize access to resources needed by the interception handler to
>> protect against invalid memory accesses.
>>
>> The first pass (PATCH v3) at trying to synchronize access to the pqap
>> function pointer employed RCU. The problem is, the RCU read-side
>> critical
>> section would have to include the execution of the pqap function which
>> sleeps; RCU disallows sleeping inside an RCU region. When I subsequently
>> tried to encompass the pqap function within the
>> rcu_read_lock/rcu_read_unlock, I ended up seeing lockdep warnings in the
>> syslog.
>>
>> It was suggested that we use an rw_semaphore to synchronize access to
>> the pqap hook, but I also ran into similar lockdep complaints something
>> like the following:
>>
>> Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>> ---- ----
>> down_read(&rwsem)
>> in handle_pqap (priv.c);
>> lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> in vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm
>> (vfio_ap_ops.c)
>> down_write(&rwsem;
>> in vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm
>> (vfio_ap_ops.c)
>> lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> in handle_pqap(vfio_ap_ops.c)
>>
>> Access to the mdev must be done under the matrix_dev->lock to ensure
>> that
>> it doesn't get freed via the remove callback while in use. This appears
>> to be mutually exclusive with setting/unsetting the pqap_hook pointer
>> due to lockdep issues.
>>
>> The solution:
>> ------------
>> The lifetime of the handle_pqap function (vfio_ap_ops) is syncrhonous
>> with the lifetime of the vfio_ap module, so there really is not reason
>> to tie the setting/clearing of its function pointer with the lifetime
>> of a guest or even an mdev. If the function pointer is set when the
>> vfio_ap module is loaded and cleared when the vfio_ap module is
>> unloaded,
>> then access to it can be protected independently from mdev creation or
>> removal as well as the starting or shutdown of a guest. As long as
>> access to the mdev is always controlled by the matrix_dev->lock, the
>> mdev can not be freed without other functions being aware.
>>
>> Change log:
>> v3 -> v4:
>> --------
>> * Created a registry for crypto hooks in priv.c with functions for
>> registering/unregistering function pointers in kvm_host.h (for s390).
>>
>> * Register the function pointer for handling the PQAP instruction when
>> the vfio_ap module is loaded and unregister it when the module is
>> unloaded.
>
> Was there a v5? I cannot find it.
I'm sorry, it morphed into a different set of patches due to the
addition of a
patch precipitated by review comments of an unrelated issue. I pushed a
v5 today that contains only the relevant patches. I believe that set can be
integrated.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-16 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-21 19:36 [PATCH v4 0/2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback Tony Krowiak
2021-05-21 19:36 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] " Tony Krowiak
2021-05-25 13:03 ` Halil Pasic
2021-05-25 13:22 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-26 12:37 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-21 19:36 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: control access to PQAP(AQIC) interception handler Tony Krowiak
2021-05-23 22:57 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-25 14:59 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-25 15:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-24 14:37 ` Jason J. Herne
2021-05-25 13:16 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-25 13:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-25 15:08 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-25 15:11 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-25 15:56 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-25 16:29 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-27 2:28 ` Tony Krowiak
2021-05-27 11:24 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-25 13:24 ` Jason J. Herne
2021-05-25 13:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-05-25 14:07 ` Jason J. Herne
2021-05-25 14:16 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-06-14 7:51 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback Christian Borntraeger
2021-06-16 14:24 ` Tony Krowiak [this message]
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=cb9883fb-8a4f-db8e-1349-cb078c7ba5e8@linux.ibm.com \
--to=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jjherne@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kwankhede@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.vnet.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