On 6/21/19 10:17 AM, Farhan Ali wrote:
>
>
> On 06/20/2019 04:27 PM, Eric Farman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/20/19 3:40 PM, Farhan Ali wrote:
>>> There is a small window where it's possible that an interrupt can
>>> arrive and can call cp_free, while we are still processing a channel
>>> program (i.e allocating memory, pinnging pages, translating
>>
>> s/pinnging/pinning/
>>
>>> addresses etc). This can lead to allocating and freeing at the same
>>> time and can cause memory corruption.
>>>
>>> Let's not call cp_free if we are currently processing a channel program.
>>
>> The check around this cp_free() call is for a solicited interrupt, so
>> it's presumably in response to a SSCH we issued. But if we're still
>> processing a CP, then we hadn't issued the SSCH to the hardware yet. So
>> what is this interrupt for? Do the contents of irb.cpa provide any
>> clues, perhaps if it's in the current cp or for someone else?
>>
>
> I don't think the interrupt is in response to an ssch but rather due to
> an csch/hsch.
>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I have been running my test overnight with this patch and I haven't
>>> seen the stack traces that I mentioned about earlier. I would like
>>> to get some reviews on this and also if this is the right thing to
>>> do?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Farhan
>>>
>>> drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>> b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>> index 66a66ac..61ece3f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/vfio_ccw_drv.c
>>> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ static void vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo(struct work_struct
>>> *work)
>>> (SCSW_ACTL_DEVACT | SCSW_ACTL_SCHACT));
>>> if (scsw_is_solicited(&irb->scsw)) {
>>> cp_update_scsw(&private->cp, &irb->scsw);
>>
>> As I alluded earlier, do we know this irb is for this cp? If no, what
>> does this function end up putting in the scsw?
>>
>>> - if (is_final)
>>> + if (is_final && private->state != VFIO_CCW_STATE_CP_PROCESSING)
>>
>> In looking at how we set this state, and how we exit it, I see we do:
>>
>> if SSCH got CC0, CP_PROCESSING -> CP_PENDING
>> if SSCH got !CC0, CP_PROCESSING -> IDLE
>>
>> While the first scenario happens immediately after the SSCH instruction,
>> I guess it could be just tiny enough, like the io_trigger FSM patch I
>> sent a few weeks ago.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the latter happens way after we return from the jump table.
>> So that scenario leaves considerable time for such an interrupt to
>> occur, though I don't understand why it would if we got a CC(1-3) on the
>> SSCH.
>>
>> And anyway, the return from fsm_io_helper() in that case will also call
>> cp_free(). So why does the cp->initialized check provide protection
>> from a double-free in that direction, but not here? I'm confused.
>
> I have a theory where I think it's possible to have 2 different threads
> executing cp_free
>
> If we start with private->state == IDLE and the guest issues a
> clear/halt and then an ssch
>
> - clear/halt will be issued to hardware, and if succeeds we will return
> cc=0 to guest
>
> - the guest can then issue ssch
It can issue whatever it wants, but shouldn't the SSCH get a CC2 until
the halt/clear pending state is cleared? Hrm, fsm_io_request() doesn't
look. Rather, it (fsm_io_helper()) relies on the CC2 to be signalled
from the SSCH issued to the device. There's a lot of stuff that happens
before we get to that point.
I'm wondering if there's a way we could/should return the SSCH here
before we do any processing. After all, until the interrupt on the
workqueue is processed, we are busy.
>
> - we get an interrupt for csch/hsch and we queue the interrupt in the
> workqueue
>
> - we start processing the ssch and then at the same time another cpu
> could be working on the
> interrupt>
>
> Thread 1 Thread 2
> -------- --------
>
> fsm_io_request vfio_ccw_sch_io_todo
> cp_init cp_free
> cp_prefetch
> fsm_io_helper
> cp_free
>
>
>
> The test that I am trying is with a guest running an fio workload, while
> at the same time stressing the error recovery path in the guest. So
> there is a lot of ssch and lot of csch.
>
> Of course I don't think my patch completely solves the problem, I think
> it just makes the window narrower. I just wanted to get a discussion
> started :)
>
>
> Now that I am thinking more about it, I think we might have to protect
> cp with it's own mutex.
That seems like a big hammer, and I wonder if the existing SCHIB/FSM/CP
state data doesn't provide that information to us. But I gotta wander
around some code before I say.
>
> Thanks
> Farhan
>
>
>>
>>> cp_free(&private->cp);
>>> }
>>> mutex_lock(&private->io_mutex);
>>>
>>
>
