From: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com>
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>
Cc: "akrowiak@linux.ibm.com" <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>,
"jjherne@linux.ibm.com" <jjherne@linux.ibm.com>,
"farman@linux.ibm.com" <farman@linux.ibm.com>,
"imbrenda@linux.ibm.com" <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
"frankja@linux.ibm.com" <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
"pmorel@linux.ibm.com" <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>,
"david@redhat.com" <david@redhat.com>, "Christopherson, ,
Sean" <seanjc@google.com>,
"intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"cohuck@redhat.com" <cohuck@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"zhenyuw@linux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@linux.intel.com>,
"pasic@linux.ibm.com" <pasic@linux.ibm.com>,
"jgg@nvidia.com" <jgg@nvidia.com>,
"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
"pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
"borntraeger@linux.ibm.com" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
"Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@intel.com>,
"intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org"
<intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:55:39 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b5a7efc9-7cfa-3314-fe36-b8da4a25265d@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BN9PR11MB52763D861C254248FD33F65C8CC79@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
On 1/18/23 4:03 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> From: Alex Williamson
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:23 AM
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 19:03:51 -0500
>> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> void vfio_device_group_close(struct vfio_device *device)
>>> {
>>> + void (*put_kvm)(struct kvm *kvm);
>>> + struct kvm *kvm;
>>> +
>>> mutex_lock(&device->group->group_lock);
>>> + kvm = device->kvm;
>>> + put_kvm = device->put_kvm;
>>> vfio_device_close(device, device->group->iommufd);
>>> + if (kvm == device->kvm)
>>> + kvm = NULL;
>>
>> Hmm, so we're using whether the device->kvm pointer gets cleared in
>> last_close to detect whether we should put the kvm reference. That's a
>> bit obscure. Our get and put is also asymmetric.
>>
>> Did we decide that we couldn't do this via a schedule_work() from the
>> last_close function, ie. implementing our own version of an async put?
>> It seems like that potentially has a cleaner implementation, symmetric
>> call points, handling all the storing and clearing of kvm related
>> pointers within the get/put wrappers, passing only a vfio_device to the
>> put wrapper, using the "vfio_device_" prefix for both. Potentially
>> we'd just want an unconditional flush outside of lock here for
>> deterministic release.
>>
>> What's the downside? Thanks,
>>
>
> btw I guess this can be also fixed by Yi's work here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230117134942.101112-6-yi.l.liu@intel.com/
>
> with set_kvm(NULL) moved to the release callback of kvm_vfio device,
> such circular lock dependency can be avoided too.
Oh, interesting... It seems to me that this would eliminate the reported call chain altogether:
kvm_put_kvm
-> kvm_destroy_vm
-> kvm_destroy_devices
-> kvm_vfio_destroy (starting here -- this would no longer be executed)
-> kvm_vfio_file_set_kvm
-> vfio_file_set_kvm
-> group->group_lock/group_rwsem
because kvm_destroy_devices now can't end up calling kvm_vfio_destroy and friends, it won't try and acquire the group lock a 2nd time making a kvm_put_kvm while the group lock is held OK to do. The vfio_file_set_kvm call will now always come from a separate thread of execution, kvm_vfio_group_add, kvm_vfio_group_del or the release thread:
kvm_device_release (where the group->group_lock would not be held since vfio does not trigger closing of the kvm fd)
-> kvm_vfio_destroy (or, kvm_vfio_release)
-> kvm_vfio_file_set_kvm
-> vfio_file_set_kvm
-> group->group_lock/group_rwsem
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-18 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-14 0:03 [PATCH v4] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock Matthew Rosato
2023-01-16 15:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2023-01-17 9:05 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-17 21:22 ` Alex Williamson
2023-01-18 9:03 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-18 14:55 ` Matthew Rosato [this message]
2023-01-19 3:43 ` Tian, Kevin
2023-01-19 19:05 ` Alex Williamson
2023-01-18 14:15 ` Matthew Rosato
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=b5a7efc9-7cfa-3314-fe36-b8da4a25265d@linux.ibm.com \
--to=mjrosato@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=alex.williamson@redhat.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=farman@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jjherne@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pasic@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=yi.l.liu@intel.com \
--cc=zhenyuw@linux.intel.com \
--cc=zhi.a.wang@intel.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