Re: [PATCH 0/7] xen/events: bug fixes and some diagnostic aids

[Julien Grall <julien@xen.org>]

On 08/02/2021 09:41, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> On 08.02.21 10:11, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Juergen,
>>
>> On 07/02/2021 12:58, Jürgen Groß wrote:
>>> On 06.02.21 19:46, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> Hi Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/02/2021 10:49, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> The first three patches are fixes for XSA-332. The avoid WARN splats
>>>>> and a performance issue with interdomain events.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for helping to figure out the problem. Unfortunately, I still 
>>>> see reliably the WARN splat with the latest Linux master 
>>>> (1e0d27fce010) + your first 3 patches.
>>>>
>>>> I am using Xen 4.11 (1c7d984645f9) and dom0 is forced to use the 2L 
>>>> events ABI.
>>>>
>>>> After some debugging, I think I have an idea what's went wrong. The 
>>>> problem happens when the event is initially bound from vCPU0 to a 
>>>> different vCPU.
>>>>
>>>>  From the comment in xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu(), we are masking the 
>>>> event to prevent it being delivered on an unexpected vCPU. However, 
>>>> I believe the following can happen:
>>>>
>>>> vCPU0                | vCPU1
>>>>                  |
>>>>                  | Call xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu()
>>>> receive event X            |
>>>>                  | mask event X
>>>>                  | bind to vCPU1
>>>> <vCPU descheduled>        | unmask event X
>>>>                  |
>>>>                  | receive event X
>>>>                  |
>>>>                  | handle_edge_irq(X)
>>>> handle_edge_irq(X)        |  -> handle_irq_event()
>>>>                  |   -> set IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
>>>>   -> set IRQS_PENDING        |
>>>>                  |   -> evtchn_interrupt()
>>>>                  |   -> clear IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
>>>>                  |  -> IRQS_PENDING is set
>>>>                  |  -> handle_irq_event()
>>>>                  |   -> evtchn_interrupt()
>>>>                  |     -> WARN()
>>>>                  |
>>>>
>>>> All the lateeoi handlers expect a ONESHOT semantic and 
>>>> evtchn_interrupt() is doesn't tolerate any deviation.
>>>>
>>>> I think the problem was introduced by 7f874a0447a9 ("xen/events: fix 
>>>> lateeoi irq acknowledgment") because the interrupt was disabled 
>>>> previously. Therefore we wouldn't do another iteration in 
>>>> handle_edge_irq().
>>>
>>> I think you picked the wrong commit for blaming, as this is just
>>> the last patch of the three patches you were testing.
>>
>> I actually found the right commit for blaming but I copied the 
>> information from the wrong shell :/. The bug was introduced by:
>>
>> c44b849cee8c ("xen/events: switch user event channels to lateeoi model")
>>
>>>
>>>> Aside the handlers, I think it may impact the defer EOI mitigation 
>>>> because in theory if a 3rd vCPU is joining the party (let say vCPU A 
>>>> migrate the event from vCPU B to vCPU C). So info->{eoi_cpu, 
>>>> irq_epoch, eoi_time} could possibly get mangled?
>>>>
>>>> For a fix, we may want to consider to hold evtchn_rwlock with the 
>>>> write permission. Although, I am not 100% sure this is going to 
>>>> prevent everything.
>>>
>>> It will make things worse, as it would violate the locking hierarchy
>>> (xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu() is called with the IRQ-desc lock held).
>>
>> Ah, right.
>>
>>>
>>> On a first glance I think we'll need a 3rd masking state ("temporarily
>>> masked") in the second patch in order to avoid a race with lateeoi.
>>>
>>> In order to avoid the race you outlined above we need an "event is being
>>> handled" indicator checked via test_and_set() semantics in
>>> handle_irq_for_port() and reset only when calling clear_evtchn().
>>
>> It feels like we are trying to workaround the IRQ flow we are using 
>> (i.e. handle_edge_irq()).
> 
> I'm not really sure this is the main problem here. According to your
> analysis the main problem is occurring when handling the event, not when
> handling the IRQ: the event is being received on two vcpus.

I don't think we can easily divide the two because we rely on the IRQ 
framework to handle the lifecycle of the event. So...

> 
> Our problem isn't due to the IRQ still being pending, but due it being
> raised again, which should happen for a one shot IRQ the same way.

... I don't really see how the difference matter here. The idea is to 
re-use what's already existing rather than trying to re-invent the wheel 
with an extra lock (or whatever we can come up).

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall