On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 01:22:56PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>
>
> 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
> +++ 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)) {
module locking doesn't prevent driver unbinding
> + 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);
So taking the pointer out of the rcu still isn't protected.
Unless this is super performance critical just use a rw sem
Jason
