All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
To: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Synchronize changes to active state
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:30:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1463751027-17517-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> (raw)

When modifying the active state of an interrupt via the MMIO interface,
we should ensure that the write has the intended effect.

If a guest sets an interrupt to active, but that interrupt is already
flushed into a list register on a running VCPU, then that VCPU will
write the active state back into the struct vgic_irq upon returning from
the guest and syncing its state.  This is a non-benign race, because the
guest can observe that an interrupt is not active, and it can have a
reasonable expectations that other VCPUs will not ack any IRQs, and then
set the state to active, and expect it to stay that way.  Currently we
are not honoring this case.

Thefore, change both the SACTIVE and CACTIVE mmio handlers to stop the
world, change the irq state, potentially queue the irq if we're setting
it to active, and then continue.

Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
---
 virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
index 4ef3571..90b0dc4 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
@@ -173,6 +173,34 @@ unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	return value;
 }
 
+static void vgic_mmio_change_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_irq *irq,
+				    bool new_active_state)
+{
+	spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
+	/*
+	 * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
+	 * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
+	 * synced back LR state to the struct vgic_irq.  We can only
+	 * know this for sure, when either this irq is not assigned to
+	 * anyone's AP list anymore, or the VCPU thread is not
+	 * running on any CPUs.
+	 *
+	 * In the opposite case, we know the VCPU thread may be on its
+	 * way back from the guest and still has to sync back this
+	 * IRQ, so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the
+	 * other thread sync back the IRQ.
+	 */
+	while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
+	       irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) /* VCPU thread is running */
+		cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
+
+	irq->active = new_active_state;
+	if (new_active_state)
+		vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq);
+	else
+		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+}
+
 void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 			     gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
 			     unsigned long val)
@@ -183,27 +211,7 @@ void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 	for_each_set_bit(i, &val, len * 8) {
 		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
-
-		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-		/*
-		 * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
-		 * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
-		 * synced back LR state to the struct vgic_irq.  We can only
-		 * know this for sure, when either this irq is not assigned to
-		 * anyone's AP list anymore, or the VCPU thread is not
-		 * running on any CPUs.
-		 *
-		 * In the opposite case, we know the VCPU thread may be on its
-		 * way back from the guest and still has to sync back this
-		 * IRQ, so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the
-		 * other thread sync back the IRQ.
-		 */
-		while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
-		       irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) /* VCPU thread is running */
-			cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-
-		irq->active = false;
-		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+		vgic_mmio_change_active(vcpu, irq, false);
 	}
 	kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 }
@@ -215,25 +223,12 @@ void vgic_mmio_write_sactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	u32 intid = VGIC_ADDR_TO_INTID(addr, 1);
 	int i;
 
+	kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 	for_each_set_bit(i, &val, len * 8) {
 		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
-
-		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-
-		/*
-		 * If the IRQ was already active or there is no target VCPU
-		 * assigned at the moment, then just proceed.
-		 */
-		if (irq->active || !irq->target_vcpu) {
-			irq->active = true;
-
-			spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
-			continue;
-		}
-
-		irq->active = true;
-		vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq);
+		vgic_mmio_change_active(vcpu, irq, true);
 	}
+	kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 }
 
 unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_priority(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
-- 
2.1.2.330.g565301e.dirty

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Synchronize changes to active state
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 15:30:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1463751027-17517-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org> (raw)

When modifying the active state of an interrupt via the MMIO interface,
we should ensure that the write has the intended effect.

If a guest sets an interrupt to active, but that interrupt is already
flushed into a list register on a running VCPU, then that VCPU will
write the active state back into the struct vgic_irq upon returning from
the guest and syncing its state.  This is a non-benign race, because the
guest can observe that an interrupt is not active, and it can have a
reasonable expectations that other VCPUs will not ack any IRQs, and then
set the state to active, and expect it to stay that way.  Currently we
are not honoring this case.

Thefore, change both the SACTIVE and CACTIVE mmio handlers to stop the
world, change the irq state, potentially queue the irq if we're setting
it to active, and then continue.

Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
---
 virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
index 4ef3571..90b0dc4 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
@@ -173,6 +173,34 @@ unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	return value;
 }
 
+static void vgic_mmio_change_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_irq *irq,
+				    bool new_active_state)
+{
+	spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
+	/*
+	 * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
+	 * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
+	 * synced back LR state to the struct vgic_irq.  We can only
+	 * know this for sure, when either this irq is not assigned to
+	 * anyone's AP list anymore, or the VCPU thread is not
+	 * running on any CPUs.
+	 *
+	 * In the opposite case, we know the VCPU thread may be on its
+	 * way back from the guest and still has to sync back this
+	 * IRQ, so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the
+	 * other thread sync back the IRQ.
+	 */
+	while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
+	       irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) /* VCPU thread is running */
+		cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
+
+	irq->active = new_active_state;
+	if (new_active_state)
+		vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq);
+	else
+		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+}
+
 void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 			     gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
 			     unsigned long val)
@@ -183,27 +211,7 @@ void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 	for_each_set_bit(i, &val, len * 8) {
 		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
-
-		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-		/*
-		 * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
-		 * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
-		 * synced back LR state to the struct vgic_irq.  We can only
-		 * know this for sure, when either this irq is not assigned to
-		 * anyone's AP list anymore, or the VCPU thread is not
-		 * running on any CPUs.
-		 *
-		 * In the opposite case, we know the VCPU thread may be on its
-		 * way back from the guest and still has to sync back this
-		 * IRQ, so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the
-		 * other thread sync back the IRQ.
-		 */
-		while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
-		       irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) /* VCPU thread is running */
-			cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-
-		irq->active = false;
-		spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+		vgic_mmio_change_active(vcpu, irq, false);
 	}
 	kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 }
@@ -215,25 +223,12 @@ void vgic_mmio_write_sactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 	u32 intid = VGIC_ADDR_TO_INTID(addr, 1);
 	int i;
 
+	kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 	for_each_set_bit(i, &val, len * 8) {
 		struct vgic_irq *irq = vgic_get_irq(vcpu->kvm, vcpu, intid + i);
-
-		spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
-
-		/*
-		 * If the IRQ was already active or there is no target VCPU
-		 * assigned at the moment, then just proceed.
-		 */
-		if (irq->active || !irq->target_vcpu) {
-			irq->active = true;
-
-			spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
-			continue;
-		}
-
-		irq->active = true;
-		vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq);
+		vgic_mmio_change_active(vcpu, irq, true);
 	}
+	kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
 }
 
 unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_priority(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
-- 
2.1.2.330.g565301e.dirty

             reply	other threads:[~2016-05-20 13:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-05-20 13:30 Christoffer Dall [this message]
2016-05-20 13:30 ` [PATCH] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Synchronize changes to active state Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 13:53 ` [PATCH v2] " Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 13:53   ` Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:07   ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:07     ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:14     ` Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:14       ` Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:31   ` [PATCH v3] " Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:31     ` Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:43     ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:43       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:47       ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:47         ` Marc Zyngier
2016-05-20 14:49         ` Christoffer Dall
2016-05-20 14:49           ` Christoffer Dall

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=1463751027-17517-1-git-send-email-christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --to=christoffer.dall@linaro.org \
    --cc=andre.przywara@arm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.