On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 12:10:11 -0500
Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/3/21 10:23 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:43:22 -0500
> > Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> This patch fixes a lockdep splat introduced by commit f21916ec4826
> >> ("s390/vfio-ap: clean up vfio_ap resources when KVM pointer invalidated").
> >> The lockdep splat only occurs when starting a Secure Execution guest.
> >> Crypto virtualization (vfio_ap) is not yet supported for SE guests;
> >> however, in order to avoid this problem when support becomes available,
> >> this fix is being provided.
> > [..]
> >
> >> @@ -1038,14 +1116,28 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev,
> >> {
> >> struct ap_matrix_mdev *m;
> >>
> >> - list_for_each_entry(m, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >> - if ((m != matrix_mdev) && (m->kvm == kvm))
> >> - return -EPERM;
> >> - }
> >> + if (kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd) {
> >> + matrix_mdev->kvm_busy = true;
> >>
> >> - matrix_mdev->kvm = kvm;
> >> - kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
> >> - kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = &matrix_mdev->pqap_hook;
> >> + list_for_each_entry(m, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >> + if ((m != matrix_mdev) && (m->kvm == kvm)) {
> >> + wake_up_all(&matrix_mdev->wait_for_kvm);
> > This ain't no good. kvm_busy will remain true if we take this exit. The
> > wake_up_all() is not needed, because we hold the lock, so nobody can
> > observe it if we don't forget kvm_busy set.
> >
> > I suggest moving matrix_mdev->kvm_busy = true; after this loop, maybe right
> > before the unlock, and removing the wake_up_all().
> >
> >> + return -EPERM;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >> + kvm_arch_crypto_set_masks(kvm,
> >> + matrix_mdev->matrix.apm,
> >> + matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
> >> + matrix_mdev->matrix.adm);
> >> + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >> + kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = &matrix_mdev->pqap_hook;
> >> + matrix_mdev->kvm = kvm;
> >> + matrix_mdev->kvm_busy = false;
> >> + wake_up_all(&matrix_mdev->wait_for_kvm);
> >> + }
> >>
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> > [..]
> >
> >> @@ -1300,7 +1406,21 @@ static ssize_t vfio_ap_mdev_ioctl(struct mdev_device *mdev,
> >> ret = vfio_ap_mdev_get_device_info(arg);
> >> break;
> >> case VFIO_DEVICE_RESET:
> >> - ret = vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(mdev);
> >> + matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * If the KVM pointer is in the process of being set, wait until
> >> + * the process has completed.
> >> + */
> >> + wait_event_cmd(matrix_mdev->wait_for_kvm,
> >> + matrix_mdev->kvm_busy == false,
> >> + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock),
> >> + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock));
> >> +
> >> + if (matrix_mdev->kvm)
> >> + ret = vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(mdev);
> >> + else
> >> + ret = -ENODEV;
> > I don't think rejecting the reset is a good idea. I have you a more detailed
> > explanation of the list, where we initially discussed this question.
> >
> > How do you exect userspace to react to this -ENODEV?
>
> After reading your more detailed explanation, I have come to the
> conclusion that the test for matrix_mdev->kvm should not be
> performed here and the the vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues() function
> should be called regardless. Each queue assigned to the mdev
> that is also bound to the vfio_ap driver will get reset and its
> IRQ resources cleaned up if they haven't already been and the
> other required conditions are met (i.e., see
> vfio_ap_mdev_free_irq_resources()).
My point is if !->kvm the other required conditions are not met. But
yes we can go back to unconditional vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(mdev),
and think about the necessity of performing a
vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues() if !->kvm later as I proposed in the other
mail.
Regards,
Halil
