From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>, seanjc@google.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: guest_memfd: Remove RCU-protected attribute from slot->gmem.file
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2024 19:38:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fc22436b-6053-47d0-8329-d75cd748ea61@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241104084303.29909-1-yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
On 11/4/24 09:43, Yan Zhao wrote:
> Remove the RCU-protected attribute from slot->gmem.file. No need to use RCU
> primitives rcu_assign_pointer()/synchronize_rcu() to update this pointer.
>
> - slot->gmem.file is updated in 3 places:
> kvm_gmem_bind(), kvm_gmem_unbind(), kvm_gmem_release().
> All of them are protected by kvm->slots_lock.
>
> - slot->gmem.file is read in 2 paths:
> (1) kvm_gmem_populate
> kvm_gmem_get_file
> __kvm_gmem_get_pfn
>
> (2) kvm_gmem_get_pfn
> kvm_gmem_get_file
> __kvm_gmem_get_pfn
>
> Path (1) kvm_gmem_populate() requires holding kvm->slots_lock, so
> slot->gmem.file is protected by the kvm->slots_lock in this path.
>
> Path (2) kvm_gmem_get_pfn() does not require holding kvm->slots_lock.
> However, it's also not guarded by rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock().
> So synchronize_rcu() in kvm_gmem_unbind()/kvm_gmem_release() actually
> will not wait for the readers in kvm_gmem_get_pfn() due to lack of RCU
> read-side critical section.
>
> The path (2) kvm_gmem_get_pfn() is safe without RCU protection because:
> a) kvm_gmem_bind() is called on a new memslot, before the memslot is
> visible to kvm_gmem_get_pfn().
> b) kvm->srcu ensures that kvm_gmem_unbind() and freeing of a memslot
> occur after the memslot is no longer visible to kvm_gmem_get_pfn().
> c) get_file_active() ensures that kvm_gmem_get_pfn() will not access the
> stale file if kvm_gmem_release() sets it to NULL. This is because if
> kvm_gmem_release() occurs before kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), get_file_active()
> will return NULL; if get_file_active() does not return NULL,
> kvm_gmem_release() should not occur until after kvm_gmem_get_pfn()
> releases the file reference.
Thanks for the analysis, I added some notes:
diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index 4ec2564c0d0f..c788d0bd952a 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -602,6 +602,11 @@ struct kvm_memory_slot {
#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_PRIVATE_MEM
struct {
+ /*
+ * Writes protected by kvm->slots_lock. Acquiring a
+ * reference via kvm_gmem_get_file() is protected by
+ * either kvm->slots_lock or kvm->srcu.
+ */
struct file *file;
pgoff_t pgoff;
} gmem;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
index 9d9bf3d033bd..411ff7224caa 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
@@ -261,6 +261,12 @@ static int kvm_gmem_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
* dereferencing the slot for existing bindings needs to be protected
* against memslot updates, specifically so that unbind doesn't race
* and free the memslot (kvm_gmem_get_file() will return NULL).
+ *
+ * Since .release is called only when the reference count is zero,
+ * after which file_ref_get() and get_file_active() fail,
+ * kvm_gmem_get_pfn() cannot be using the file concurrently.
+ * file_ref_put() provides a full barrier, and get_file_active() the
+ * matching acquire barrier.
*/
mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
@@ -508,8 +514,8 @@ int kvm_gmem_bind(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
/*
* memslots of flag KVM_MEM_GUEST_MEMFD are immutable to change, so
- * kvm_gmem_bind() must occur on a new memslot.
- * Readers are guaranteed to see this new file.
+ * kvm_gmem_bind() must occur on a new memslot. Because the memslot
+ * is not visible yet, kvm_gmem_get_pfn() is guaranteed to see the file.
*/
WRITE_ONCE(slot->gmem.file, file);
slot->gmem.pgoff = start;
@@ -547,6 +554,11 @@ void kvm_gmem_unbind(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
filemap_invalidate_lock(file->f_mapping);
xa_store_range(&gmem->bindings, start, end - 1, NULL, GFP_KERNEL);
+
+ /*
+ * synchronize_srcu(&kvm->srcu) ensured that kvm_gmem_get_pfn()
+ * cannot see this memslot.
+ */
WRITE_ONCE(slot->gmem.file, NULL);
filemap_invalidate_unlock(file->f_mapping);
Queued to kvm-coco-queue.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-22 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-04 8:41 [PATCH 0/2] RCU related fix based on kvm-coco-queue Yan Zhao
2024-11-04 8:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] KVM: x86/tdp_mmu: Use rcu_dereference() to protect sptep for dereferencing Yan Zhao
2024-11-04 8:43 ` [PATCH 2/2] KVM: guest_memfd: Remove RCU-protected attribute from slot->gmem.file Yan Zhao
2024-12-22 18:38 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2024-12-23 5:43 ` Yan Zhao
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=fc22436b-6053-47d0-8329-d75cd748ea61@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@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