Re: [PATCH] KVM: hyperv: split lock to protect struct kvm_hv

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roman Kagan" <rkagan@virtuozzo.com>
> To: "Paolo Bonzini" <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, dvyukov@redhat.com
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 9:13:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: hyperv: split lock to protect struct kvm_hv
> 
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 08:46:07AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Otherwise, there is an AB-BA deadlock between kvm->lock and
> > vcpu->mutex.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 	Compile-tested only.
> > 
> >  Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt |  2 ++
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h       |  1 +
> >  arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c                 | 10 +++++-----
> >  arch/x86/kvm/x86.c                    |  1 +
> >  4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > index e5dd9f4d6100..5dd06289ce59 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt
> > @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@ The acquisition orders for mutexes are as follows:
> >  For spinlocks, kvm_lock is taken outside kvm->mmu_lock.  Everything
> >  else is a leaf: no other lock is taken inside the critical sections.
> >  
> > +In particular, on x86, vcpu->mutex is taken outside
> > kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock.
> > +
> >  2: Exception
> >  ------------
> >  
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 7892530cbacf..2e25038dbd93 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ struct kvm_apic_map {
> >  
> >  /* Hyper-V emulation context */
> >  struct kvm_hv {
> > +	struct mutex hv_lock;
> >  	u64 hv_guest_os_id;
> >  	u64 hv_hypercall;
> >  	u64 hv_tsc_page;
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > index 99cde5220e07..021abafabc12 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> > @@ -1142,9 +1142,9 @@ int kvm_hv_set_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
> > msr, u64 data, bool host)
> >  	if (kvm_hv_msr_partition_wide(msr)) {
> >  		int r;
> >  
> > -		mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> > +		mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock);
> >  		r = kvm_hv_set_msr_pw(vcpu, msr, data, host);
> > -		mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> > +		mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock);
> >  		return r;
> >  	} else
> >  		return kvm_hv_set_msr(vcpu, msr, data, host);
> > @@ -1155,9 +1155,9 @@ int kvm_hv_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
> > msr, u64 *pdata)
> >  	if (kvm_hv_msr_partition_wide(msr)) {
> >  		int r;
> >  
> > -		mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> > +		mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock);
> >  		r = kvm_hv_get_msr_pw(vcpu, msr, pdata);
> > -		mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> > +		mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_lock);
> >  		return r;
> >  	} else
> >  		return kvm_hv_get_msr(vcpu, msr, pdata);
> > @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ int kvm_hv_get_msr_common(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32
> > msr, u64 *pdata)
> >  
> >  bool kvm_hv_hypercall_enabled(struct kvm *kvm)
> >  {
> > -	return kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_hypercall & HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL_ENABLE;
> > +	return READ_ONCE(kvm->arch.hyperv.hv_hypercall) &
> > HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL_ENABLE;
> >  }
> >  
> 
> I'm afraid we have a problem with ->hv_tsc_page which can't be solved
> with a similar READ_ONCE() in kvm_hv_setup_tsc_page().  I need to
> double-check if taking a mutex is ok there; if not we may have to do
> srcu...

Yes, it can take a mutex.

Paolo