On Sun, Sep 08, 2024 at 04:27:10PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Sun, 08 Sep 2024 14:36:37 +0100, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled irqchip/gic-v4: Make sure a VPE is locked when VMAPP is issued to the 6.6-stable tree which can be found at: http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary The filename of the patch is: irqchip-gic-v4-make-sure-a-vpe-is-locked-when-vmapp-.patch and it can be found in the queue-6.6 subdirectory. If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it. commit 1a232324773145ff7ce59b6a1b52b3247223f9d4 Author: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri Jul 5 10:31:55 2024 +0100 irqchip/gic-v4: Make sure a VPE is locked when VMAPP is issued [ Upstream commit a84a07fa3100d7ad46a3d6882af25a3df9c9e7e3 ] In order to make sure that vpe->col_idx is correctly sampled when a VMAPP command is issued, the vpe_lock must be held for the VPE. This is now possible since the introduction of the per-VM vmapp_lock, which can be taken before vpe_lock in the correct locking order. Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Nianyao Tang <tangnianyao@xxxxxxxxxx> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240705093155.871070-4-maz@xxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c index e25dea0e50c7..1e0f0e1bf481 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3-its.c @@ -1804,7 +1804,9 @@ static void its_map_vm(struct its_node *its, struct its_vm *vm) for (i = 0; i < vm->nr_vpes; i++) { struct its_vpe *vpe = vm->vpes[i]; - its_send_vmapp(its, vpe, true); + scoped_guard(raw_spinlock, &vpe->vpe_lock) + its_send_vmapp(its, vpe, true); + its_send_vinvall(its, vpe); } } @@ -1825,8 +1827,10 @@ static void its_unmap_vm(struct its_node *its, struct its_vm *vm) if (!--vm->vlpi_count[its->list_nr]) { int i; - for (i = 0; i < vm->nr_vpes; i++) + for (i = 0; i < vm->nr_vpes; i++) { + guard(raw_spinlock)(&vm->vpes[i]->vpe_lock); its_send_vmapp(its, vm->vpes[i], false); + } } raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vmovp_lock, flags);No please. Not only you are missing the essential part of the series (the patch introducing the per-VM lock that this change relies on), you are also missing the fixes that followed. So please drop this patch from the 6.6 and 6.1 queues.
Will do, thanks! -- Thanks, Sasha
