On 1/20/21 6:10 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 1/20/21 8:21 AM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/19/21 9:02 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
>>> Some s390 PCI devices (e.g. ISM) perform I/O operations that have very
>> .. snip ...
>>> +
>>> +static size_t vfio_pci_zdev_io_rw(struct vfio_pci_device *vdev,
>>> + char __user *buf, size_t count,
>>> + loff_t *ppos, bool iswrite)
>>> +{
>> ... snip ...
>>> + /*
>>> + * For now, the largest allowed block I/O is advertised as PAGE_SIZE,
>>> + * and cannot exceed a page boundary - so a single page is enough. The
>>> + * guest should have validated this but let's double-check that the
>>> + * request will not cross a page boundary.
>>> + */
>>> + if (((region->req.gaddr & ~PAGE_MASK)
>>> + + region->req.len - 1) & PAGE_MASK) {
>>> + return -EIO;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + mutex_lock(&zdev->lock);
>>
>> I plan on using the zdev->lock for preventing concurrent zPCI devices
>> removal/configuration state changes between zPCI availability/error
>> events and enable_slot()/disable_slot() and /sys/bus/pci/devices/<dev>/recover.
>>
>> With that use in place using it here causes a deadlock when doing
>> "echo 0 > /sys/bus/pci/slots/<fid>/power from the host for an ISM device
>> attached to a guest.
>>
>> This is because the (soft) hot unplug will cause vfio to notify QEMU, which
>> sends a deconfiguration request to the guest, which then tries to
>> gracefully shutdown the device. During that shutdown the device will
>> be accessed, running into this code path which then blocks on
>> the lock held by the disable_slot() code which waits on vfio
>> releasing the device.
>>
>
> Oof, good catch. The primary purpose of acquiring the zdev lock here was to ensure that the region is only being used to process one operation at a time and at the time I wrote this initially the zdev lock seemed like a reasonable candidate :)
Oh ok, I thought it was to guard against removal. What's the reason
we can't have multiple concurrent users of the region though?
The PCISTB/PCILG should be able to be executed concurrently but
I'm probably missing something.
>
>> Alex may correct me if I'm wrong but I think instead vfio should
>> be holding the PCI device lock via pci_device_lock(pdev).
>>
>
> OK, I can have a look at this. Thanks.
Hmm, ok that idea was based on my assumption that it guards
against removal. My bad, of course without my patch it wouldn't
and this came before..
>
>
>> The annotated trace with my test code looks as follows:
>>
>> [ 618.025091] Call Trace:
>> [ 618.025093] [<00000007c1a139e0>] __schedule+0x360/0x960
>> [ 618.025104] [<00000007c1a14760>] schedule_preempt_disabled+0x60/0x100
>> [ 618.025107] [<00000007c1a16b48>] __mutex_lock+0x358/0x880
>> [ 618.025110] [<00000007c1a170a2>] mutex_lock_nested+0x32/0x40
>> [ 618.025112] [<000003ff805a3948>] vfio_pci_zdev_io_rw+0x168/0x310 [vfio_pci]
>> [ 618.025120] [<000003ff8059b2b0>] vfio_pci_write+0xd0/0xe0 [vfio_pci]
>> [ 618.025124] [<00000007c0fa5392>] __s390x_sys_pwrite64+0x112/0x360
>> [ 618.025129] [<00000007c1a0aaf6>] __do_syscall+0x116/0x190
>> [ 618.025132] [<00000007c1a1deda>] system_call+0x72/0x98
>> [ 618.025137] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1315:
>> [ 618.025139] #0: 000000008524b4e8 (&zdev->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: vfio_pci_zdev_io_rw+0x168/0x310 [vfio_pci]
>> [ 618.025151]
>> Showing all locks held in the system:
>> [ 618.025166] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/99:
>> [ 618.025168] #0: 00000007c1ed4748 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at: rcu_lock_acquire.constprop.0+0x0/0x210
>> [ 618.025194] 6 locks held by zsh/1190:
>> [ 618.025196] #0: 0000000095fc0488 (sb_writers#3){....}-{0:0}, at: __do_syscall+0x116/0x190
>> [ 618.025226] #1: 00000000975bf090 (&of->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0x9a/0x240
>> [ 618.025236] #2: 000000008584be78 (kn->active#245){....}-{0:0}, at: kernfs_fop_write+0xa6/0x240
>> [ 618.025243] #3: 000000008524b4e8 (&zdev->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: disable_slot+0x32/0x130 <-------------------------------------|
>> [ 618.025252] #4: 00000007c1f53468 (pci_rescan_remove_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: pci_stop_and_remove_bus_device_locked+0x26/0x240 |
>> [ 618.025260] #5: 0000000085d8a1a0 (&dev->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: device_release_driver+0x32/0x1d0 |
>> [ 618.025271] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1312: D
>> [ 618.025273] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1313: E
>> [ 618.025275] #0: 00000000d47e80d0 (&vcpu->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x780 [kvm] A
>> [ 618.025322] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1314: D
>> [ 618.025324] #0: 00000000d34700d0 (&vcpu->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x780 [kvm] |
>> [ 618.025345] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1315: |
>> [ 618.025347] #0: 000000008524b4e8 (&zdev->lock){....}-{3:3}, at: vfio_pci_zdev_io_rw+0x168/0x310 [vfio_pci] <------------------|
>> [ 618.025355] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1317:
>> [ 618.025357] #0: 00000000d34480d0 (&vcpu->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x780 [kvm]
>> [ 618.025378] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1318:
>> [ 618.025380] #0: 00000000d34380d0 (&vcpu->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x780 [kvm]
>> [ 618.025400] 1 lock held by qemu-system-s39/1319:
>> [ 618.025403] #0: 00000000d47e8a90 (&vcpu->mutex){....}-{3:3}, at: kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x90/0x780 [kvm]
>> [ 618.025424] 2 locks held by zsh/1391:
>> [ 618.025426] #0: 00000000d4a708a0 (&tty->ldisc_sem){....}-{0:0}, at: tty_ldisc_ref_wait+0x34/0x70
>> [ 618.025435] #1: 0000038002fc72f0 (&ldata->atomic_read_lock){....}-{3:3}, at: n_tty_read+0xc8/0xa50
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> + ret = get_user_pages_fast(region->req.gaddr & PAGE_MASK, 1, 0, &gpage);
>>> + if (ret <= 0) {
>>> + count = -EIO;
>> ... snip ...
>>
>
