Re: [PATCH v4 02/11] vpci: cancel pending map/unmap on vpci removal

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <Oleksandr_Andrushchenko@epam.com>]

Hi, Julien!

On 16.11.21 20:02, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Oleksandr,
>
> On 16/11/2021 14:24, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16.11.21 16:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.11.2021 14:41, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 16.11.21 10:23, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>> On 16.11.21 10:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 16.11.2021 08:32, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15.11.21 18:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 05.11.2021 07:56, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When a vPCI is removed for a PCI device it is possible that we have
>>>>>>>>> scheduled a delayed work for map/unmap operations for that device.
>>>>>>>>> For example, the following scenario can illustrate the problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> pci_physdev_op
>>>>>>>>>         pci_add_device
>>>>>>>>>             init_bars -> modify_bars -> defer_map -> raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ)
>>>>>>>>>         iommu_add_device <- FAILS
>>>>>>>>>         vpci_remove_device -> xfree(pdev->vpci)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> leave_hypervisor_to_guest
>>>>>>>>>         vpci_process_pending: v->vpci.mem != NULL; v->vpci.pdev->vpci == NULL
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the hardware domain we continue execution as the worse that
>>>>>>>>> could happen is that MMIO mappings are left in place when the
>>>>>>>>> device has been deassigned
>>>>>>>> Is continuing safe in this case? I.e. isn't there the risk of a NULL
>>>>>>>> deref?
>>>>>>> I think it is safe to continue
>>>>>> And why do you think so? I.e. why is there no race for Dom0 when there
>>>>>> is one for DomU?
>>>>> Well, then we need to use a lock to synchronize the two.
>>>>> I guess this needs to be pci devs lock unfortunately
>>>> The parties involved in deferred work and its cancellation:
>>>>
>>>> MMIO trap -> vpci_write -> vpci_cmd_write -> modify_bars -> defer_map
>>>>
>>>> Arm: leave_hypervisor_to_guest -> check_for_vcpu_work -> vpci_process_pending
>>>>
>>>> x86: two places -> hvm_do_resume -> vpci_process_pending
>>>>
>>>> So, both defer_map and vpci_process_pending need to be synchronized with
>>>> pcidevs_{lock|unlock).
>>> If I was an Arm maintainer, I'm afraid I would object to the pcidevs lock
>>> getting used in leave_hypervisor_to_guest.
>> I do agree this is really not good, but it seems I am limited in choices.
>> @Stefano, @Julien, do you see any better way of doing that?
>
> I agree with Jan about using the pcidevs_{lock|unlock}. The lock is not fine-grained enough for been call in vpci_process_pending().
>
> I haven't yet looked at the rest of the series to be able to suggest the exact lock. But we at least want a per-domain spinlock.
>
>>
>> We were thinking about introducing a dedicated lock for vpci [1],
>> but finally decided to use pcidevs_lock for now
>
> Skimming through the thread, you decided to use pcidevs_lock because it was simpler and sufficient for the use case discussed back then. Now, we have a use case where it would be a problem to use pcidevs_lock. So I think the extra complexity is justified.
I would like to understand what is this lock so I can implement that properly.
We have the following options as I can see:

1. pcidevs_{lock|unlock} - considered too heavy, per host
2. pdev->vpci->lock - better, but still heavy, per PCI device
3. We may convert pdev->vpci->lock into r/w lock
4. We may introduce a specific lock

To better understand the scope of the lock:
1. MMIO trap handlers (vpci_{read|write} - already protected with pdev->vpci->lock
2. vpci_process_pending (SOFTIRQ context)
3. Hypercalls which call pci_{add|remove|assign|deassign}_device
4. @Roger, did I miss something?

And I feel that this needs a dedicated patch for that: I am not sure it is a
good idea to add this locking change into this patch which seems not so relevant
>
> Cheers,
>