Re: read_barrier_depends() usage in vhost.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2019/10/19 上午4:58, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:17:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
On 2019/10/17 上午7:33, Will Deacon wrote:
In an attempt to remove the remaining traces of [smp_]read_barrier_depends()
following my previous patches to strengthen READ_ONCE() for Alpha [1], I
ended up trying to decipher the read_barrier_depends() usage in the vhost
driver:

--->8

// drivers/vhost/vhost.c
static int get_indirect(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
			struct iovec iov[], unsigned int iov_size,
			unsigned int *out_num, unsigned int *in_num,
			struct vhost_log *log, unsigned int *log_num,
			struct vring_desc *indirect)
{
	[...]

	/* We will use the result as an address to read from, so most
	 * architectures only need a compiler barrier here. */
	read_barrier_depends();

--->8

Unfortunately, although the barrier is commented (hurrah!), it's not
particularly enlightening about the accesses making up the dependency
chain, and I don't understand the supposed need for a compiler barrier
either (read_barrier_depends() doesn't generally provide this).

Does anybody know which accesses are being ordered here? Usually you'd need
a READ_ONCE()/rcu_dereference() beginning the chain, but I haven't managed
to find one...

I guess it was because we will read from the address stored in the iov like:

1) trasnlate_desc() that stores the userspace buffer pointer in the iov

2) copy_from_iter() that reads from those pointers
Isn't that exactly the same flow as vhost_copy_from_user(), which doesn't
have the barrier?


There's a rmb before calling vhost_copy_from_user() (vhost_get_desc()).


  Staring at the code some more, my best bet at the moment
is that the load of 'indirect->addr' is probably the one to worry about,
since it's part of the vring and can be updated concurrently.


I'm also confused about the barrier here, basically in driver side we did:

1) allocate pages

2) store pages in indirect->addr

3) smp_wmb()

4) increase the avail idx (somehow a tail pointer of vring)

in vhost we did:

1) read avail idx

2) smp_rmb()

3) read indirect->addr

4) read from indirect->addr

It looks to me even the data dependency barrier is not necessary since we have rmb() which is sufficient for us to the correct indirect->addr and driver are not expected to do any writing to indirect->addr after avail idx is increased ?

Thanks



So we need a data dependency barrier in the middle as explained in the
memory-barriers.txt? (since READ_ONCE is not used in iov iterator).
If the barrier is actually required, then there must be a concurrent access
involved, in which case READ_ONCE should also be used. So I would propose
something like the diff below, but I'd still be glad to hear whether I'm
barking up the wrong tree.

Will

--->8

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 36ca2cf419bf..2e370a229fea 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -2107,6 +2107,7 @@ static int get_indirect(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
  {
  	struct vring_desc desc;
  	unsigned int i = 0, count, found = 0;
+	__virtio64 addr = READ_ONCE(indirect->addr);
  	u32 len = vhost32_to_cpu(vq, indirect->len);
  	struct iov_iter from;
  	int ret, access;
@@ -2120,7 +2121,7 @@ static int get_indirect(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
  		return -EINVAL;
  	}
- ret = translate_desc(vq, vhost64_to_cpu(vq, indirect->addr), len, vq->indirect,
+	ret = translate_desc(vq, vhost64_to_cpu(vq, addr), len, vq->indirect,
  			     UIO_MAXIOV, VHOST_ACCESS_RO);
  	if (unlikely(ret < 0)) {
  		if (ret != -EAGAIN)
@@ -2129,10 +2130,6 @@ static int get_indirect(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
  	}
  	iov_iter_init(&from, READ, vq->indirect, ret, len);
- /* We will use the result as an address to read from, so most
-	 * architectures only need a compiler barrier here. */
-	read_barrier_depends();
-
  	count = len / sizeof desc;
  	/* Buffers are chained via a 16 bit next field, so
  	 * we can have at most 2^16 of these. */
@@ -2152,12 +2149,12 @@ static int get_indirect(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
  		}
  		if (unlikely(!copy_from_iter_full(&desc, sizeof(desc), &from))) {
  			vq_err(vq, "Failed indirect descriptor: idx %d, %zx\n",
-			       i, (size_t)vhost64_to_cpu(vq, indirect->addr) + i * sizeof desc);
+			       i, (size_t)vhost64_to_cpu(vq, addr) + i * sizeof desc);
  			return -EINVAL;
  		}
  		if (unlikely(desc.flags & cpu_to_vhost16(vq, VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT))) {
  			vq_err(vq, "Nested indirect descriptor: idx %d, %zx\n",
-			       i, (size_t)vhost64_to_cpu(vq, indirect->addr) + i * sizeof desc);
+			       i, (size_t)vhost64_to_cpu(vq, addr) + i * sizeof desc);
  			return -EINVAL;
  		}

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization




[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux