From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Ross Lagerwall <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't crash when mapping a page using EFI runtime page tables
Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:17:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5565D209020000780007E2FC@mail.emea.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5565B282.4030705@citrix.com>
>>> On 27.05.15 at 14:03, <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 05/27/2015 12:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 27.05.15 at 12:23, <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2015 03:58 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15.05.15 at 18:08, <ross.lagerwall@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain_page.c
>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain_page.c
>>>>> @@ -32,20 +32,25 @@ static inline struct vcpu *mapcache_current_vcpu(void)
>>>>> return NULL;
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> + * When using efi runtime page tables, we have the equivalent of the
>>> idle
>>>>> + * domain's page tables but current may point at another domain's VCPU.
>>>>> + * Return NULL as though current is not properly set up yet.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if ( efi_enabled && read_cr3() == efi_rs_page_table() )
>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>
>>>> I'm okay with the patch in principle; what worries me is the CR3 read
>>>> that is now going to be necessary even in non-debug builds. With
>>>> this code being the only user of efi_rs_page_table(), I wonder if it
>>>> wouldn't make sense to alter that function to return non-zero only
>>>> when spin_is_locked(&efi_rs_lock), and then alter the code above
>>>> such that the CR3 read would happen only when we got a non-zero
>>>> value back.
>>>
>>> mapcache_current_vcpu() appears to be called from IRQ-enabled and
>>> IRQ-disabled callers which prevents us from using the spinlock.
>>
>> I didn't suggest to use any spin lock; I merely suggested checking
>> whether that particular one is being held by someone (to avoid the
>> CR3 read if that's not the case).
>
> spin_is_locked() calls check_lock() which causes a BUG_ON() even though
> you're not actually using the lock.
Then some other mechanism - spin_is_locked() would have produced
false positives anyway. E.g. storing the CPU which managed to acquire
the lock in efi_rs_enter(), and clearing it in efi_rs_leave() before
dropping the lock. efi_rs_page_table() could then return non-zero on
only this one CPU.
Jan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-27 12:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-15 16:08 [PATCH] x86: Don't crash when mapping a page using EFI runtime page tables Ross Lagerwall
2015-05-15 17:41 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-05-18 9:02 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-18 10:55 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-05-18 9:12 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-18 14:58 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-27 10:23 ` Ross Lagerwall
2015-05-27 11:59 ` Jan Beulich
2015-05-27 12:03 ` Ross Lagerwall
2015-05-27 12:17 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
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=5565D209020000780007E2FC@mail.emea.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=ross.lagerwall@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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).