On Wed, Mar 31, 2021, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/03/21 03:19, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * Reset the lock used to prevent memslot updates between MMU notifier
> > + * range_start and range_end. At this point no more MMU notifiers will
> > + * run, but the lock could still be held if KVM's notifier was removed
> > + * between range_start and range_end. No threads can be waiting on the
> > + * lock as the last reference on KVM has been dropped. If the lock is
> > + * still held, freeing memslots will deadlock.
> > + */
> > + init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
>
> I was going to say that this is nasty,
Heh, I still think it's nasty.
> then I noticed that
> mmu_notifier_unregister uses SRCU to ensure completion of concurrent calls
> to the MMU notifier. So I guess it's fine, but it's better to point it out:
>
> /*
> * At this point no more MMU notifiers will run and pending
> * calls to range_start have completed, but the lock would
> * still be held and never released if the MMU notifier was
> * removed between range_start and range_end. Since the last
> * reference to the struct kvm has been dropped, no threads can
> * be waiting on the lock, but we might still end up taking it
> * when freeing memslots in kvm_arch_destroy_vm. Reset the lock
> * to avoid deadlocks.
> */
>
> That said, the easiest way to avoid this would be to always update
> mmu_notifier_count.
Updating mmu_notifier_count requires taking mmu_lock, which would defeat the
purpose of these shenanigans. I think it could be made atomic, since mmu_lock
would be taken before the elevated count _must_ be visible, but that would
break the mmu_notifier_range_{start,end} optimization that was recently added.
Or did I completely misunderstand what you're suggesting?
> I don't mind the rwsem, but at least I suggest that you
> split the patch in two---the first one keeping the mmu_notifier_count update
> unconditional, and the second one introducing the rwsem and the on_lock
> function kvm_inc_notifier_count. Please document the new lock in
> Documentation/virt/kvm/locking.rst too.
Note, will update docs.
> Also, related to the first part of the series, perhaps you could structure
> the series in a slightly different way:
>
> 1) introduce the HVA walking API in common code, complete with on_lock and
> patch 15, so that you can use on_lock to increase mmu_notifier_seq
>
> 2) then migrate all architectures including x86 to the new API
>
> IOW, first half of patch 10 and all of patch 15; then the second half of
> patch 10; then patches 11-14.
>
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> > + down_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
> > +#endif
> > rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> > + up_write(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
> > +#endif
>
> Please do this unconditionally, the cost is minimal if the rwsem is not
> contended (as is the case if the architecture doesn't use MMU notifiers at
> all).
It's not the cost, it's that mmu_notifier_slots_lock doesn't exist. That's an
easily solved problem, but then the lock wouldn't be initialized since
kvm_init_mmu_notifier() is a nop. That's again easy to solve, but IMO would
look rather weird. I guess the counter argument is that __kvm_memslots()
wouldn't need #ifdeffery.
These are the to ideas I've come up with:
Option 1:
static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
{
init_rwsem(&kvm->mmu_notifier_slots_lock);
#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
kvm->mmu_notifier.ops = &kvm_mmu_notifier_ops;
return mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
#else
return 0;
#endif
}
Option 2:
kvm_mmu_notifier_lock(kvm);
rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
kvm_mmu_notifier_unlock(kvm);
