On Wed, 19 May 2021 13:22:56 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> 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.
>
Hm, seems our emails crossed mid air...
>
> 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);
> + }
Up to this point the local pqap_hook is guaranteed to point to a valid
object if not NULL, ...
> + rcu_read_unlock();
... and after this point IMHO it is not.
> + ret = pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
So IMHO the pointer deference here is still problematic, but that can
be fixed easily as I described in that email I've sent 3 minutes after
yours. IMHO we need a local copy of cpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook
taken within the rcu read critical section. Do you agree?
Regards,
Halil
> + 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;
