Re: [PATCH] x86/paravirt: Add missing noinstr to arch_local*() helpers

Jürgen Groß
2020-08-07T12:04:27Z

On 07.08.20 13:38, Marco Elver wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 12:35PM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>> On 07.08.20 11:50, Marco Elver wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 11:24AM +0200, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>>> On 07.08.20 11:01, Marco Elver wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 18:06, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 at 15:17, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 01:32PM +0200, peterz@infradead.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 09:47:23AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Testing my hypothesis that raw then nested non-raw
>>>>>>>>> local_irq_save/restore() breaks IRQ state tracking -- see the reproducer
>>>>>>>>> below. This is at least 1 case I can think of that we're bound to hit.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /me goes ponder things...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How's something like this then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> include/linux/sched.h | 3 ---
>>>>>>>> kernel/kcsan/core.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you! That approach seems to pass syzbot (also with
>>>>>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT) and kcsan-test tests.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to modify it some, so that report.c's use of the restore logic
>>>>>>> works and not mess up the IRQ trace printed on KCSAN reports (with
>>>>>>> CONFIG_KCSAN_VERBOSE).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still need to fully convince myself all is well now and we don't end
>>>>>>> up with more fixes. :-) If it passes further testing, I'll send it as a
>>>>>>> real patch (I want to add you as Co-developed-by, but would need your
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by for the code you pasted, I think.)
>>>>>
>>>>> I let it run on syzbot through the night, and it's fine without
>>>>> PARAVIRT (see below). I have sent the patch (need your Signed-off-by
>>>>> as it's based on your code, thank you!):
>>>>> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20200807090031.3506555-1-elver@google.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> With CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y (without the notrace->noinstr patch), I still
>>>>>> get lockdep DEBUG_LOCKS_WARN_ON(!lockdep_hardirqs_enabled()), although
>>>>>> it takes longer for syzbot to hit them. But I think that's expected
>>>>>> because we can still get the recursion that I pointed out, and will
>>>>>> need that patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never mind, I get these warnings even if I don't turn on KCSAN
>>>>> (CONFIG_KCSAN=n). Something else is going on with PARAVIRT=y that
>>>>> throws off IRQ state tracking. :-/
>>>>
>>>> What are the settings of CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL and
>>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS in this case?
>>>
>>> I attached a config.
>>>
>>> $> grep PARAVIRT .config
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT=y
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL=y
>>> # CONFIG_PARAVIRT_DEBUG is not set
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS=y
>>> # CONFIG_PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING is not set
>>> CONFIG_PARAVIRT_CLOCK=y
>>
>> Anything special I need to do to reproduce the problem? Or would you be
>> willing to do some more rounds with different config settings?
>
> I can only test it with syzkaller, but that probably doesn't help if you
> don't already have it set up. It can't seem to find a C reproducer.
>
> I did some more rounds with different configs.
>
>> I think CONFIG_PARAVIRT_XXL shouldn't matter, but I'm not completely
>> sure about that. CONFIG_PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS would be my primary suspect.
>
> Yes, PARAVIRT_XXL doesn't make a different. When disabling
> PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS, however, the warnings go away.

Thanks for testing!

I take it you are doing the tests in a KVM guest?

If so I have a gut feeling that the use of local_irq_save() and
local_irq_restore() in kvm_wait() might be fishy. I might be completely
wrong here, though.

BTW, I think Xen's variant of pv spinlocks is fine (no playing with IRQ
on/off).

Hyper-V seems to do the same as KVM, and kicking another vcpu could be
problematic as well, as it is just using IPI.

Juergen