On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 10:49:09AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >
> > Summary edit
> >
> > > KVM: arm/arm64: Require VCPU threads to turn them self off
> >
> > themselves
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:46:54AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > To avoid a race between turning VCPUs off and turning them on, make sure
> > > that only the VCPU threat itself turns off the VCPU. When other threads
> > > want to turn of a VCPU, they now do this via a request.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> > > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 8 ++++++--
> > > virt/kvm/arm/psci.c | 11 ++---------
> > > 4 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 50e89869178a..b1cfae222441 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
> > > KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(0, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
> > > #define KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
> > > #define KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
> > > +#define KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF \
> > > + KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(3, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
> > >
> > > DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(userspace_irqchip_in_use);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index da3fc7324d68..d43b13421987 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
> > > KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(0, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
> > > #define KVM_REQ_IRQ_PENDING KVM_ARCH_REQ(1)
> > > #define KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET KVM_ARCH_REQ(2)
> > > +#define KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF \
> > > + KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(3, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
> > >
> > > DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(userspace_irqchip_in_use);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > index 9c486fad3f9f..785076176814 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > > @@ -404,8 +404,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >
> > > static void vcpu_power_off(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > - vcpu->arch.power_off = true;
> > > - kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_SLEEP, vcpu);
> > > + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF, vcpu);
> > > kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > > }
> >
> > I think we should leave this function alone. Otherwise if userspace sets
> > the MP state to STOPPED and then queries the state before the vcpu
> > has a chance to manage its vcpu requests, the state will still indicate
> > RUNNBLE. The same goes for a query right after doing a vcpu init.
> >
>
> We can't leave this alone, because that could lead to userspace racing
> with two PSCI_VCPU_ON requests which could then both enter the critical
> section gated only by the cmpxchg in kvm_psci_vcpu_on.
Right. I keep forgetting about that race.
>
> But we could do something like this (completely untested):
>
>
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> index 1e3195155860..538b5eb9d920 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> @@ -404,6 +404,17 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> static void vcpu_power_off(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + enum vcpu_power_state old_power_state;
> +
> + /*
> + * Set power_state directly to reflect the power state back to user
> + * space even when the VCPU thread has not had a chance to run, but
> + * only if this doesn't accidentally allow interleaved PSCI_VCPU_ON
> + * requests.
> + */
> + old_power_state = cmpxchg(&vcpu->arch.power_state,
> + KVM_ARM_VCPU_ON,
> + KVM_ARM_VCPU_OFF);
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF, vcpu);
> kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> }
Something like that sounds good to me.
>
>
> > >
> > > @@ -646,6 +645,11 @@ static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_SLEEP, vcpu))
> > > vcpu_req_sleep(vcpu);
> > >
> > > + if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF, vcpu)) {
> > > + vcpu->arch.power_off = true;
> > > + vcpu_req_sleep(vcpu);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_RESET, vcpu))
> > > kvm_reset_vcpu(vcpu);
> > >
> > > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
> > > index b9cff1d4b06d..20255319e193 100644
> > > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
> > > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/psci.c
> > > @@ -97,9 +97,7 @@ static unsigned long kvm_psci_vcpu_suspend(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > >
> > > static void kvm_psci_vcpu_off(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > - vcpu->arch.power_off = true;
> > > - kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_SLEEP, vcpu);
> > > - kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > > + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_VCPU_OFF, vcpu);
> > > }
> >
> > This was currently fine since it implements CPU_OFF which only applies to
> > the calling vcpu, but there's also no reason not to change it to be
> > consistent with the below change
> >
>
> Same problem as above, we don't want two VCPUs to be messing with a
> target VCPU state at the same time.
>
Yup
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
