From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: pbonzini@redhat.com, arei.gonglei@huawei.com,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, longpeng2@huawei.com,
rkrcmar@redhat.com, wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com,
weidong.huang@huawei.com
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "KVM: VMX: avoid double list add with VT-d posted interrupts" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 14:50:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1506948644147248@kroah.com> (raw)
This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
KVM: VMX: avoid double list add with VT-d posted interrupts
to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
kvm-vmx-avoid-double-list-add-with-vt-d-posted-interrupts.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.
>From 8b306e2f3c41939ea528e6174c88cfbfff893ce1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 12:57:05 +0200
Subject: KVM: VMX: avoid double list add with VT-d posted interrupts
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
commit 8b306e2f3c41939ea528e6174c88cfbfff893ce1 upstream.
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: Huangweidong <weidong.huang@huawei.com>
Cc: Gonglei <arei.gonglei@huawei.com>
Cc: wangxin <wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Tested-by: Longpeng (Mike) <longpeng2@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c
@@ -11005,10 +11005,11 @@ static void __pi_post_block(struct kvm_v
struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
struct pi_desc old, new;
unsigned int dest;
- unsigned long flags;
do {
old.control = new.control = pi_desc->control;
+ WARN(old.nv != POSTED_INTR_WAKEUP_VECTOR,
+ "Wakeup handler not enabled while the VCPU is blocked\n");
dest = cpu_physical_id(vcpu->cpu);
@@ -11025,14 +11026,10 @@ static void __pi_post_block(struct kvm_v
} 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));
vcpu->pre_pcpu = -1;
}
}
@@ -11052,7 +11049,6 @@ static void __pi_post_block(struct kvm_v
*/
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);
@@ -11062,34 +11058,20 @@ static int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_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");
@@ -11114,7 +11096,12 @@ static int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_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)
@@ -11130,12 +11117,13 @@ static int vmx_pre_block(struct kvm_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)
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from pbonzini@redhat.com are
queue-4.9/kvm-vmx-simplify-and-fix-vmx_vcpu_pi_load.patch
queue-4.9/kvm-vmx-avoid-double-list-add-with-vt-d-posted-interrupts.patch
queue-4.9/kvm-nvmx-don-t-allow-l2-to-access-the-hardware-cr8.patch
queue-4.9/kvm-x86-handle-async-pf-in-rcu-read-side-critical-sections.patch
queue-4.9/kvm-vmx-extract-__pi_post_block.patch
queue-4.9/kvm-vmx-do-not-bug-on-out-of-bounds-guest-irq.patch
reply other threads:[~2017-10-02 12:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=1506948644147248@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=arei.gonglei@huawei.com \
--cc=longpeng2@huawei.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
--cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wangxinxin.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=weidong.huang@huawei.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).