From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, andreyknvl@google.com,
dvyukov@google.com, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
christoffer.dall@linaro.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kcc@google.com, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] kvm: arm/arm64: Fix locking for kvm_free_stage2_pgd
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 16:31:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170403143127.GA11752@cbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170403142211.GE18905@leverpostej>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:22:11PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> > In kvm_free_stage2_pgd() we don't hold the kvm->mmu_lock while calling
> > unmap_stage2_range() on the entire memory range for the guest. This could
> > cause problems with other callers (e.g, munmap on a memslot) trying to
> > unmap a range. And since we have to unmap the entire Guest memory range
> > holding a spinlock, make sure we yield the lock if necessary, after we
> > unmap each PUD range.
> >
> > Fixes: commit d5d8184d35c9 ("KVM: ARM: Memory virtualization setup")
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # v3.10+
> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzin@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> > [ Avoid vCPU starvation and lockup detector warnings ]
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
> >
> > ---
> > Changes since V2:
> > - Restrict kvm->mmu_lock relaxation to bigger ranges in unmap_stage2_range(),
> > to avoid possible issues like [0]
> >
> > [0] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2017-March/498210.html
>
> Sorry if I'm being thick, but how does restricting this to a larger
> range help with the "sleeping function called from invalid context"
> issue?
>
> Surely that just makes it rarer?
As far as I can tell, the unmap_stage2_range() function is only called
in the problematic path which has the extra lock taken rom
try_to_unmap_one() via the kvm_unmap_hva() function, which always
passes PAGE_SIZE as the argument, which is always smaller than
S2_PUD_SIZE.
Did I miss something?
Thanks,
-Christoffer
>
> >
> > Changes since V1:
> > - Yield the kvm->mmu_lock if necessary in unmap_stage2_range to prevent
> > vCPU starvation and lockup detector warnings.
> > ---
> > arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> > index 13b9c1f..db94f3a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/mmu.c
> > @@ -292,8 +292,15 @@ static void unmap_stage2_range(struct kvm *kvm, phys_addr_t start, u64 size)
> > phys_addr_t addr = start, end = start + size;
> > phys_addr_t next;
> >
> > + assert_spin_locked(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > pgd = kvm->arch.pgd + stage2_pgd_index(addr);
> > do {
> > + /*
> > + * If the range is too large, release the kvm->mmu_lock
> > + * to prevent starvation and lockup detector warnings.
> > + */
> > + if (size > S2_PUD_SIZE)
> > + cond_resched_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > next = stage2_pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
> > if (!stage2_pgd_none(*pgd))
> > unmap_stage2_puds(kvm, pgd, addr, next);
> > @@ -831,7 +838,10 @@ void kvm_free_stage2_pgd(struct kvm *kvm)
> > if (kvm->arch.pgd == NULL)
> > return;
> >
> > + spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > unmap_stage2_range(kvm, 0, KVM_PHYS_SIZE);
> > + spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> > +
> > /* Free the HW pgd, one page at a time */
> > free_pages_exact(kvm->arch.pgd, S2_PGD_SIZE);
> > kvm->arch.pgd = NULL;
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-04-03 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-04-03 14:12 [PATCH v3] kvm: arm/arm64: Fix locking for kvm_free_stage2_pgd Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-03 14:22 ` Mark Rutland
2017-04-03 14:25 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-03 14:31 ` Christoffer Dall [this message]
2017-04-04 10:13 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-04-04 10:35 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2017-04-04 12:29 ` Christoffer Dall
2017-04-22 0:28 ` Alexander Graf
2017-04-24 9:42 ` Suzuki K Poulose
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=20170403143127.GA11752@cbox \
--to=cdall@linaro.org \
--cc=andreyknvl@google.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=kcc@google.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.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).