On 19.05.21 10:17, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 19.05.21 01:27, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 19:01:42 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18.05.21 17:33, Halil Pasic wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2021 15:59:36 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[..]
Would it help, if the code in priv.c would read the hook once
and then only work on the copy? We could protect that with rcu
and do a synchronize rcu in vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm after
unsetting the pointer?
Unfortunately just "the hook" is ambiguous in this context. We
have kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook that is supposed to point to
a struct kvm_s390_module_hook member of struct ap_matrix_mdev
which is also called pqap_hook. And struct kvm_s390_module_hook
has function pointer member named "hook".
I was referring to the full struct.
I'll look into this.
I think it could work. in priv.c use rcu_readlock, save the
pointer, do the check and call, call rcu_read_unlock.
In vfio_ap use rcu_assign_pointer to set the pointer and
after setting it to zero call sychronize_rcu.
In my opinion, we should make the accesses to the
kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook pointer properly synchronized. I'm
not sure if that is what you are proposing. How do we usually
do synchronisation on the stuff that lives in kvm->arch?
RCU is a method of synchronization. We make sure that structure
pqap_hook is still valid as long as we are inside the rcu read
lock. So the idea is: clear pointer, wait until all old readers
have finished and the proceed with getting rid of the structure.
Yes I know that RCU is a method of synchronization, but I'm not
very familiar with it. I'm a little confused by "read the hook
once and then work on a copy". I guess, I would have to read up
on the RCU again to get clarity. I intend to brush up my RCU knowledge
once the patch comes along. I would be glad to have your help when
reviewing an RCU based solution for this.
Just had a quick look. Its not trivial, as the hook function itself
takes a mutex and an rcu section must not sleep. Will have a deeper
look.
As a quick hack something like this could work. The whole locking is pretty
complicated and this makes it even more complex so we might want to do
a cleanup/locking rework later on.
index 9928f785c677..fde6e02aab54 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
@@ -609,6 +609,7 @@ static int handle_io_inst(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
*/
static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
+ struct kvm_s390_module_hook *pqap_hook;
struct ap_queue_status status = {};
unsigned long reg0;
int ret;
@@ -657,14 +658,21 @@ static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
* Verify that the hook callback is registered, lock the owner
* and call the hook.
*/
- if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook) {
- if (!try_module_get(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner))
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ pqap_hook = rcu_dereference(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook);
+ if (pqap_hook) {
+ if (!try_module_get(pqap_hook->owner)) {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
- ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
- module_put(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner);
+ }
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ ret = pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
+ module_put(pqap_hook->owner);
if (!ret && vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0x00ff0000)
kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
return ret;
+ } else {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
/*
* A vfio_driver must register a hook.
diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
index f90c9103dac2..a7124abd6aed 100644
--- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
+++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
@@ -1194,6 +1194,7 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
+ synchronize_rcu();
kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
matrix_mdev->kvm_busy = false;
