Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: VMX: avoid double list add with VT-d posted interrupts

[Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>]

On 06/06/2017 14:30, Longpeng (Mike) wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017/6/6 18:57, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
>> In some cases, for example involving hot-unplug of assigned
>> devices, pi_post_block can forget to remove the vCPU from the
>> blocked_vcpu_list.  When this happens, the next call to
>> pi_pre_block corrupts the list.
>>
>> Fix this in two ways.  First, check vcpu->pre_pcpu in pi_pre_block
>> and WARN instead of adding the element twice in the list.  Second,
>> always do the list removal in pi_post_block if vcpu->pre_pcpu is
>> set (not -1).
>>
>> The new code keeps interrupts disabled for the whole duration of
>> pi_pre_block/pi_post_block.  This is not strictly necessary, but
>> easier to follow.  For the same reason, PI.ON is checked only
>> after the cmpxchg, and to handle it we just call the post-block
>> code.  This removes duplication of the list removal code.
>>
>> Cc: Longpeng (Mike) <longpeng2@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Huangweidong <weidong.huang@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Gonglei <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
>> Cc: wangxin <wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
>>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
>> @@ -11256,14 +11257,10 @@ static void __pi_post_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	} while (cmpxchg(&pi_desc->control, old.control,
>>  			new.control) != old.control);
>>  
>> -	if(vcpu->pre_pcpu != -1) {
>> -		spin_lock_irqsave(
>> -			&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -			vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> +	if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->pre_pcpu == -1)) {
>> +		spin_lock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->pre_pcpu));
>>  		list_del(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list);
>> -		spin_unlock_irqrestore(
>> -			&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -			vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> +		spin_unlock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->pre_pcpu));
> 
> 
> Hi Paolo,
> 
> spin_lock_irqsave() will disable kernel preempt, but spin_lock() won't. is there
> some potential problems ?

Hi,

This function (and pi_pre_block too's part where it takes the spin lock)
runs with interrupts disabled now.

Thanks,

Paolo

> Regards,
> Longpeng(Mike)
> 
>>  		vcpu->pre_pcpu = -1;
>>  	}
>>  }
>> @@ -11283,7 +11280,6 @@ static void __pi_post_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   */
>>  static int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	unsigned long flags;
>>  	unsigned int dest;
>>  	struct pi_desc old, new;
>>  	struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
>> @@ -11293,34 +11289,20 @@ static int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  		!kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu))
>>  		return 0;
>>  
>> -	vcpu->pre_pcpu = vcpu->cpu;
>> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -			  vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> -	list_add_tail(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list,
>> -		      &per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu,
>> -		      vcpu->pre_pcpu));
>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -			       vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> +	WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
>> +	local_irq_disable();
>> +	if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(vcpu->pre_pcpu != -1)) {
>> +		vcpu->pre_pcpu = vcpu->cpu;
>> +		spin_lock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->pre_pcpu));
>> +		list_add_tail(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list,
>> +			      &per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu,
>> +				       vcpu->pre_pcpu));
>> +		spin_unlock(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock, vcpu->pre_pcpu));
>> +	}
>>  
>>  	do {
>>  		old.control = new.control = pi_desc->control;
>>  
>> -		/*
>> -		 * We should not block the vCPU if
>> -		 * an interrupt is posted for it.
>> -		 */
>> -		if (pi_test_on(pi_desc) == 1) {
>> -			spin_lock_irqsave(&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -					  vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> -			list_del(&vcpu->blocked_vcpu_list);
>> -			spin_unlock_irqrestore(
>> -					&per_cpu(blocked_vcpu_on_cpu_lock,
>> -					vcpu->pre_pcpu), flags);
>> -			vcpu->pre_pcpu = -1;
>> -
>> -			return 1;
>> -		}
>> -
>>  		WARN((pi_desc->sn == 1),
>>  		     "Warning: SN field of posted-interrupts "
>>  		     "is set before blocking\n");
>> @@ -11345,7 +11327,12 @@ static int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	} while (cmpxchg(&pi_desc->control, old.control,
>>  			new.control) != old.control);
>>  
>> -	return 0;
>> +	/* We should not block the vCPU if an interrupt is posted for it.  */
>> +	if (pi_test_on(pi_desc) == 1)
>> +		__pi_post_block(vcpu);
>> +
>> +	local_irq_enable();
>> +	return (vcpu->pre_pcpu == -1);
>>  }
>>  
>>  static int vmx_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> @@ -11361,12 +11348,13 @@ static int vmx_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  
>>  static void pi_post_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	if (!kvm_arch_has_assigned_device(vcpu->kvm) ||
>> -		!irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP)  ||
>> -		!kvm_vcpu_apicv_active(vcpu))
>> +	if (vcpu->pre_pcpu == -1)
>>  		return;
>>  
>> +	WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
>> +	local_irq_disable();
>>  	__pi_post_block(vcpu);
>> +	local_irq_enable();
>>  }
>>  
>>  static void vmx_post_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> 
>