On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:29:43AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> The reset_done handler sets deferred_reset = true and if it's possible
> to get the state_mutex, will reset migration data and device_state as
> part of releasing that mutex. If there's contention on state_mutex,
> the deferred_reset field flags that this migration state is still stale.
>
> So, I assume that it's possible that a user resets the device via ioctl
> or config space, there was contention and the migration state is still
> stale, right?
If this occurs it is a userspace bug and the goal here is to maintain
kernel integrity.
> The user then goes to read device_state, but the staleness of the
> migration state is not resolved until *after* the stale device state is
> copied to the user buffer.
This is not preventable in the general case. Assume we have sane
locking and it looks like this:
CPU0 CPU1
ioctl state change
mutex_lock
copy_to_user(state == !RUNNING)
mutex_unlock
ioctl reset
mutex_lock
state = RUNNING
mutex_unlock
return to userspace
return to userspace
Userspace sees state != RUNNING
Same issue. Userspace cannot race state manipulating ioctls and expect
things to make any sense.
In all cases contention on the mutex during reset causes the reset to
order after the mutex is released. This is true with this approach and
it is true with a simple direct use of mutex.
In either case userspace will see incoherent results, and it is
userspace error to try and run the kernel ioctls this way.
> What did the user do wrong to see stale data? Thanks,
Userspace allowed two state effecting IOCTLs to run concurrently.
Userspace must block reset while it is manipulating migration states.
Jason
