Re: [PATCH 2/5] KVM: arm64: pvtime: Fix potential loss of stolen time

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2020-07-11 11:04, Andrew Jones wrote:
We should only check current->sched_info.run_delay once when
updating stolen time. Otherwise there's a chance there could
be a change between checks that we miss (preemption disabling
comes after vcpu request checks).

Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
index 2b22214909be..db5ef097a166 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pvtime.c
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
 void kvm_update_stolen_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 {
 	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
+	u64 last_steal = vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal;
 	u64 steal;
 	__le64 steal_le;
 	u64 offset;
@@ -24,8 +25,8 @@ void kvm_update_stolen_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)

 	/* Let's do the local bookkeeping */
 	steal = vcpu->arch.steal.steal;
-	steal += current->sched_info.run_delay - vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal;
 	vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal = current->sched_info.run_delay;
+	steal += vcpu->arch.steal.last_steal - last_steal;
 	vcpu->arch.steal.steal = steal;

 	steal_le = cpu_to_le64(steal);

Unless you read current->sched_info.run_delay using READ_ONCE,
there is no guarantee that this will do what you want. The
compiler is free to rejig this anyway it wants.

Thanks,

        M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux