Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio-ccw: fix virtio_set_ind_atomic

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:50:34AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> The atomic_cmpxchg() loop is broken because we occasionally end up with
> old and _old having different values (a legit compiler can generate code
> that accessed *ind_addr again to pick up a value for _old instead of
> using the value of old that was already fetched according to the
> rules of the abstract machine). This means the underlying CS instruction
> may use a different old (_old) than the one we intended to use if
> atomic_cmpxchg() performed the xchg part.

And was this ever observed in the field? Or is this a theoretical issue?
commit log should probably say ...

> 
> Let us use volatile to force the rules of the abstract machine for
> accesses to *ind_addr. Let us also rewrite the loop so, we that the

we that -> we know that?

> new old is used to compute the new desired value if the xchg part
> is not performed.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> Reported-by: Andre Wild <Andre.Wild1@ibm.com>
> Fixes: 7e7494627f ("s390x/virtio-ccw: Adapter interrupt support.")
> ---
>  hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> index c1f4bb1d33..3c988a000b 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> @@ -786,9 +786,10 @@ static inline VirtioCcwDevice *to_virtio_ccw_dev_fast(DeviceState *d)
>  static uint8_t virtio_set_ind_atomic(SubchDev *sch, uint64_t ind_loc,
>                                       uint8_t to_be_set)
>  {
> -    uint8_t ind_old, ind_new;
> +    uint8_t expected, actual;
>      hwaddr len = 1;
> -    uint8_t *ind_addr;
> +    /* avoid  multiple fetches */
> +    uint8_t volatile *ind_addr;
>  
>      ind_addr = cpu_physical_memory_map(ind_loc, &len, true);
>      if (!ind_addr) {
> @@ -796,14 +797,15 @@ static uint8_t virtio_set_ind_atomic(SubchDev *sch, uint64_t ind_loc,
>                       __func__, sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid);
>          return -1;
>      }
> +    actual = *ind_addr;
>      do {
> -        ind_old = *ind_addr;
> -        ind_new = ind_old | to_be_set;
> -    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(ind_addr, ind_old, ind_new) != ind_old);
> -    trace_virtio_ccw_set_ind(ind_loc, ind_old, ind_new);
> -    cpu_physical_memory_unmap(ind_addr, len, 1, len);
> +        expected = actual;
> +        actual = atomic_cmpxchg(ind_addr, expected, expected | to_be_set);
> +    } while (actual != expected);
> +    trace_virtio_ccw_set_ind(ind_loc, actual, actual | to_be_set);
> +    cpu_physical_memory_unmap((void *)ind_addr, len, 1, len);
>  
> -    return ind_old;
> +    return actual;
>  }

I wonder whether cpuXX APIs should accept volatile pointers, too:
casting away volatile is always suspicious.
But that is a separate issue ...

>  static void virtio_ccw_notify(DeviceState *d, uint16_t vector)
> -- 
> 2.17.1