From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect kvm->memslots with a mutex
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 19:46:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d936b13b-bb00-fc93-de3b-adc59fa32a7b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANgfPd8RZXQ-BamwQPS66Q5hLRZaDFhi0WaA=ZvCP4BbofiUhg@mail.gmail.com>
On 28/04/21 18:40, Ben Gardon wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:25 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 28/04/21 00:36, Ben Gardon wrote:
>>> +void kvm_arch_assign_memslots(struct kvm *kvm, int as_id,
>>> + struct kvm_memslots *slots)
>>> +{
>>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.memslot_assignment_lock);
>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
>>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.memslot_assignment_lock);
>>> +}
>>
>> Does the assignment also needs the lock, or only the rmap allocation? I
>> would prefer the hook to be something like kvm_arch_setup_new_memslots.
>
> The assignment does need to be under the lock to prevent the following race:
> 1. Thread 1 (installing a new memslot): Acquires memslot assignment
> lock (or perhaps in this case rmap_allocation_lock would be more apt.)
> 2. Thread 1: Check alloc_memslot_rmaps (it is false)
> 3. Thread 1: doesn't allocate memslot rmaps for new slot
> 4. Thread 1: Releases memslot assignment lock
> 5. Thread 2 (allocating a shadow root): Acquires memslot assignment lock
> 6. Thread 2: Sets alloc_memslot_rmaps = true
> 7. Thread 2: Allocates rmaps for all existing slots
> 8. Thread 2: Releases memslot assignment lock
> 9. Thread 2: Sets shadow_mmu_active = true
> 10. Thread 1: Installs the new memslots
> 11. Thread 3: Null pointer dereference when trying to access rmaps on
> the new slot.
... because thread 3 would be under mmu_lock and therefore cannot
allocate the rmap itself (you have to do it in mmu_alloc_shadow_roots,
as in patch 6).
Related to this, your solution does not have to protect kvm_dup_memslots
with the new lock, because the first update of the memslots will not go
through kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region but it _will_ go through
install_new_memslots and therefore through the new hook. But overall I
think I'd prefer to have a kvm->slots_arch_lock mutex in generic code,
and place the call to kvm_dup_memslots and
kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region inside that mutex.
That makes the new lock decently intuitive, and easily documented as
"Architecture code can use slots_arch_lock if the contents of struct
kvm_arch_memory_slot needs to be written outside
kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region. Unlike slots_lock, slots_arch_lock can
be taken inside a ``kvm->srcu`` read-side critical section".
I admit I haven't thought about it very thoroughly, but if something
like this is enough, it is relatively pretty:
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 9b8e30dd5b9b..6e5106365597 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1333,6 +1333,7 @@ static struct kvm_memslots
*install_new_memslots(struct kvm *kvm,
rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
+ mutex_unlock(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
synchronize_srcu_expedited(&kvm->srcu);
/*
@@ -1399,6 +1398,7 @@ static int kvm_set_memslot(struct kvm *kvm,
struct kvm_memslots *slots;
int r;
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
slots = kvm_dup_memslots(__kvm_memslots(kvm, as_id), change);
if (!slots)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -1427,6 +1427,7 @@ static int kvm_set_memslot(struct kvm *kvm,
* - kvm_is_visible_gfn (mmu_check_root)
*/
kvm_arch_flush_shadow_memslot(kvm, slot);
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
}
r = kvm_arch_prepare_memory_region(kvm, new, mem, change);
It does make the critical section a bit larger, so that the
initialization of the shadow page (which is in KVM_RUN context) contends
with slightly more code than necessary. However it's all but a
performance critical situation, as it will only happen just once per VM.
WDYT?
Paolo
> Putting the assignment under the lock prevents 5-8 from happening
> between 2 and 10.
>
> I'm open to other ideas as far as how to prevent this race though. I
> admit this solution is not the most elegant looking.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-28 17:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-27 22:36 [PATCH 0/6] Lazily allocate memslot rmaps Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 1/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Track if shadow MMU active Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 2/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Skip rmap operations if shadow MMU inactive Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 3/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Deduplicate rmap freeing in allocate_memslot_rmap Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 10:00 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-28 16:23 ` Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 4/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Factor out allocating memslot rmap Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect kvm->memslots with a mutex Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 6:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-28 16:40 ` Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 17:46 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2021-04-28 20:40 ` Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 21:41 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-28 21:46 ` Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 23:42 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-29 0:40 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-29 1:42 ` Sean Christopherson
2021-04-29 7:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-29 17:45 ` Ben Gardon
2021-04-27 22:36 ` [PATCH 6/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Lazily allocate memslot rmaps Ben Gardon
2021-04-28 10:03 ` Paolo Bonzini
2021-04-28 16:45 ` Ben Gardon
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=d936b13b-bb00-fc93-de3b-adc59fa32a7b@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bgardon@google.com \
--cc=jmattson@google.com \
--cc=junaids@google.com \
--cc=kernellwp@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=pshier@google.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=vkuznets@redhat.com \
--cc=xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com \
--cc=yulei.kernel@gmail.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).