On 9/22/2023 4:33 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
Add an assertion that there are no in-progress MMU invalidations when a
VM is being destroyed, with the exception of the scenario where KVM
unregisters its MMU notifier between an .invalidate_range_start() call and
the corresponding .invalidate_range_end().
KVM can't detect unpaired calls from the mmu_notifier due to the above
exception waiver, but the assertion can detect KVM bugs, e.g. such as the
bug that *almost* escaped initial guest_memfd development.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/e397d30c-c6af-e68f-d18e-b4e3739c5389@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 9 ++++++++-
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 54480655bcce..277afeedd670 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1381,9 +1381,16 @@ static void kvm_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
* No threads can be waiting in kvm_swap_active_memslots() as the
* last reference on KVM has been dropped, but freeing
* memslots would deadlock without this manual intervention.
+ *
+ * If the count isn't unbalanced, i.e. KVM did NOT unregister between
Nit: Readers can get it according to the code context, but is it better
to add
"MMU notifier" to tell what to "unregister" to make the comment easier to
understand?
+ * a start() and end(), then there shouldn't be any in-progress
+ * invalidations.
*/
WARN_ON(rcuwait_active(&kvm->mn_memslots_update_rcuwait));
- kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count = 0;
+ if (kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count)
+ kvm->mn_active_invalidate_count = 0;
+ else
+ WARN_ON(kvm->mmu_invalidate_in_progress);
#else
kvm_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
#endif
