Hi Paolo, thanks for the answer! Took me a bit, but I think you are right (see below). On 10/05/18 18:43, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/05/2018 19:41, Andre Przywara wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Jan posted an lockdep splat complaining about a suspicious >> rcu_dereference_check: >> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2018-May/031116.html >> >> The gist of that is: >> ... >> [ 1025.695517] dump_stack+0x9c/0xd4 >> [ 1025.695524] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xcc/0x118 >> [ 1025.695537] gfn_to_memslot+0x174/0x190 >> [ 1025.695546] kvm_read_guest+0x50/0xb0 >> [ 1025.695553] vgic_its_check_id.isra.0+0x114/0x148 >> ... >> I chased that down and wonder if kvm_read_guest{,_page} is supposed to >> be called inside a kvm->srcu critical section? >> >> We have a check that suggests that eventually someone needs to enter the >> SRCU criticial section: >> static inline struct kvm_memslots *__kvm_memslots(struct kvm *kvm, >> int as_id) >> { >> return srcu_dereference_check(kvm->memslots[as_id], &kvm->srcu, >> lockdep_is_held(&kvm->slots_lock) || >> !refcount_read(&kvm->users_count)); >> } >> >> If I get this correctly this mean for accessing kvm->memslots we either >> need to be inside an srcu critical section or hold the kvm->slots_lock >> (for updates only). >> >> If I am not mistaken, it is not necessary for *callers* of >> kvm_read_guest_page() to do this, as this could be entirely contained >> inside this function - since we only use the reference to the memslot >> entry while doing the copy_from_user(), and the data is safe afterwards >> from an RCU point of view because it has been *copied*. > > Yes, it's the caller's responsibility. srcu_read_lock/unlock is pretty > expensive Is that so? I was under the impression that declaring RCU critical sections is very cheap, is that different with SRCU? > so KVM assumes that the topmost callers do it. OK, fair enough. And with some hints from Jörg I understand now that x86 and s390 do a "srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);" right after leaving the guest and unlock it only shortly before entering again, so that any intermediate calls are protected. That leaves the locking duty only up to calls originating from userspace. But AFAICT neither mips, powerpc or arm/arm64 are doing this. I am checking now whether this is an omission or whether they are really doing fine grained locking for all memslots accesses. Definitely we are missing it around kvm_read_guest_page, so I need to either add it there are do it like x86/s390. Thanks! Andre.
