Re: [PATCH 1/2] s390/vfio-ap: r/w lock for PQAP interception handler function pointer

[Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>]

On 8/18/21 1:03 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> On 19.07.21 21:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> The function pointer to the interception handler for the PQAP 
>> instruction
>> can get changed during the interception process. Let's add a
>> semaphore to struct kvm_s390_crypto to control read/write access to the
>> function pointer contained therein.
>>
>> The semaphore must be locked for write access by the vfio_ap device 
>> driver
>> when notified that the KVM pointer has been set or cleared. It must be
>> locked for read access by the interception framework when the PQAP
>> instruction is intercepted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h      |  8 +++-----
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c              |  1 +
>>   arch/s390/kvm/priv.c                  | 10 ++++++----
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c     | 23 +++++++++++++++++------
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_private.h |  2 +-
>>   5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h 
>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 9b4473f76e56..f18849d259e6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -798,14 +798,12 @@ struct kvm_s390_cpu_model {
>>       unsigned short ibc;
>>   };
>>   -struct kvm_s390_module_hook {
>> -    int (*hook)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> -    struct module *owner;
>> -};
>> +typedef int (*crypto_hook)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>     struct kvm_s390_crypto {
>>       struct kvm_s390_crypto_cb *crycb;
>> -    struct kvm_s390_module_hook *pqap_hook;
>> +    struct rw_semaphore pqap_hook_rwsem;
>> +    crypto_hook *pqap_hook;
>>       __u32 crycbd;
>>       __u8 aes_kw;
>>       __u8 dea_kw;
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index b655a7d82bf0..a08f242a9f27 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -2630,6 +2630,7 @@ static void kvm_s390_crypto_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>>   {
>>       kvm->arch.crypto.crycb = &kvm->arch.sie_page2->crycb;
>>       kvm_s390_set_crycb_format(kvm);
>> +    init_rwsem(&kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>>         if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 76))
>>           return;
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> index 9928f785c677..6bed9406c1f3 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> @@ -610,6 +610,7 @@ static int handle_io_inst(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   {
>>       struct ap_queue_status status = {};
>> +    crypto_hook pqap_hook;
>>       unsigned long reg0;
>>       int ret;
>>       uint8_t fc;
>> @@ -657,15 +658,16 @@ static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>        * Verify that the hook callback is registered, lock the owner
>>        * and call the hook.
>>        */
>> + down_read(&vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook_rwsem);
>>       if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook) {
>> -        if (!try_module_get(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner))
>> -            return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> -        ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
>> - module_put(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner);
>> +        pqap_hook = *vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook;
>
> Dont we have to check for NULL here? If not can you add a comment why?

Take a look above the removed lines: if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook)

>
> Otherwise this looks good.

Also, in the cover letter I said this patch was already queued and was
included here because it pre-reqs the second patch. Is this patch not
already in Alex's tree?

>
>
>> +        ret = pqap_hook(vcpu);
> [...]