> >
> > +static int svm_sev_lock_for_migration(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Bail if this VM is already involved in a migration to avoid deadlock
> > + * between two VMs trying to migrate to/from each other.
> > + */
> > + spin_lock(&sev->migration_lock);
> > + if (sev->migration_in_progress)
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + else {
> > + /*
> > + * Otherwise indicate VM is migrating and take the KVM lock.
> > + */
> > + sev->migration_in_progress = true;
> > + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&sev->migration_lock);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void svm_unlock_after_migration(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_sev_info *sev = &to_kvm_svm(kvm)->sev_info;
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(sev->migration_in_progress, false);
> > +}
> > +
>
> This entire locking scheme seems over-complicated to me. Can we simply
> rely on `migration_lock` and get rid of `migration_in_progress`? I was
> chatting about these patches with Peter, while he worked on this new
> version. But he mentioned that this locking scheme had been suggested
> by Sean in a previous review. Sean: what do you think? My rationale
> was that this is called via a VM-level ioctl. So serializing the
> entire code path on `migration_lock` seems fine. But maybe I'm missing
> something?
>
Marc I think that only having the spin lock could result in
deadlocking. If userspace double migrated 2 VMs, A and B for
discussion, A could grab VM_A.spin_lock then VM_A.kvm_mutex. Meanwhile
B could grab VM_B.spin_lock and VM_B.kvm_mutex. Then A attempts to
grab VM_B.spin_lock and we have a deadlock. If the same happens with
the proposed scheme when A attempts to lock B, VM_B.spin_lock will be
open but the bool will mark the VM under migration so A will unlock
and bail. Sean originally proposed a global spin lock but I thought a
per kvm_sev_info struct would also be safe.
