On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 4:40 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 6/8/24 02:06, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Use a dedicated mutex to guard kvm_usage_count to fix a potential deadlock
> > > on x86 due to a chain of locks and SRCU synchronizations. Translating the
> > > below lockdep splat, CPU1 #6 will wait on CPU0 #1, CPU0 #8 will wait on
> > > CPU2 #3, and CPU2 #7 will wait on CPU1 #4 (if there's a writer, due to the
> > > fairness of r/w semaphores).
> > >
> > > CPU0 CPU1 CPU2
> > > 1 lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > 2 lock(&vcpu->mutex);
> > > 3 lock(&kvm->srcu);
> > > 4 lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
> > > 5 lock(kvm_lock);
> > > 6 lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
> > > 7 lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
> > > 8 sync(&kvm->srcu);
> > >
> > > Note, there are likely more potential deadlocks in KVM x86, e.g. the same
> > > pattern of taking cpu_hotplug_lock outside of kvm_lock likely exists with
> > > __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier()
> >
> > Offhand I couldn't see any places where {,__}cpufreq_driver_target() is
> > called within cpus_read_lock(). I didn't look too closely though.
>
> Anyways...
>
> cpuhp_cpufreq_online()
> |
> -> cpufreq_online()
> |
> -> cpufreq_gov_performance_limits()
> |
> -> __cpufreq_driver_target()
> |
> -> __target_index()
Ah, I only looked in generic code.
Can you add a comment to the comment message suggesting switching the
vm_list to RCU? All the occurrences of list_for_each_entry(...,
&vm_list, ...) seem amenable to that, and it should be as easy to
stick all or part of kvm_destroy_vm() behind call_rcu().
Thanks,
Paolo
