On Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:43:59 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> +{
> >> + if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
> >> + (matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >> + matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
> > Is a plain assignment to arch.crypto.pqap_hook apropriate, or do we need
> > to take more care?
> >
> > For instance kvm_arch_crypto_set_masks() takes kvm->lock before poking
> > kvm->arch.crypto.crycb.
>
> I do not think so. The CRYCB is used by KVM to provide crypto resources
> to the guest so it makes sense to protect it from changes to it while
> passing
> the AP devices through to the guest. The hook is used only when an AQIC
> executed on the guest is intercepted by KVM. If the notifier
> is being invoked to notify vfio_ap that KVM has been set to NULL, this means
> the guest is gone in which case there will be no AP instructions to
> intercept.
If the update to pqap_hook isn't observed as atomic we still have a
problem. With torn writes or reads we would try to use a corrupt function
pointer. While the compiler probably ain't likely to generate silly code
for the above assignment (multiple write instructions less then
quadword wide), I know of nothing that would prohibit the compiler to do
so.
I'm not certain about the scope of the kvm->lock (if it's supposed to
protect the whole sub-tree of objects). Maybe Janosch can help us out.
@Janosch: what do you think?
Regards,
Halil
