On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 17:05:24 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 16.12.20 10:58, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On 16.12.20 02:21, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 19:10:20 +0100
> >> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 15.12.20 11:57, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 11:56:17 -0500
> >>>> Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The vfio_ap device driver registers a group notifier with VFIO when the
> >>>>> file descriptor for a VFIO mediated device for a KVM guest is opened to
> >>>>> receive notification that the KVM pointer is set
> >>>>> (VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM
> >>>>> event). When the KVM pointer is set, the vfio_ap driver takes the
> >>>>> following actions:
> >>>>> 1. Stashes the KVM pointer in the vfio_ap_mdev struct that holds the
> >>>>> state
> >>>>> of the mediated device.
> >>>>> 2. Calls the kvm_get_kvm() function to increment its reference counter.
> >>>>> 3. Sets the function pointer to the function that handles interception
> >>>>> of
> >>>>> the instruction that enables/disables interrupt processing.
> >>>>> 4. Sets the masks in the KVM guest's CRYCB to pass AP resources through
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> the guest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In order to avoid memory leaks, when the notifier is called to receive
> >>>>> notification that the KVM pointer has been set to NULL, the vfio_ap
> >>>>> device
> >>>>> driver should reverse the actions taken when the KVM pointer was set.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fixes: 258287c994de ("s390: vfio-ap: implement mediated device open
> >>>>> callback")
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.ibm.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >>>>> b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >>>>> index e0bde8518745..cd22e85588e1 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> >>>>> @@ -1037,8 +1037,6 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm(struct
> >>>>> ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev,
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> struct ap_matrix_mdev *m;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> list_for_each_entry(m, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
> >>>>> if ((m != matrix_mdev) && (m->kvm == kvm)) {
> >>>>> mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >>>>> @@ -1049,7 +1047,6 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_set_kvm(struct
> >>>>> ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev,
> >>>>> matrix_mdev->kvm = kvm;
> >>>>> kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
> >>>>> kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = &matrix_mdev->pqap_hook;
> >>>>> - mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> return 0;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>> @@ -1083,35 +1080,49 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_iommu_notifier(struct
> >>>>> notifier_block *nb,
> >>>>> return NOTIFY_DONE;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +static void "(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> + kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> >>>>> + matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> This patch LGTM. The only concern I have with it is whether a
> >>>> different cpu is guaranteed to observe the above assignment as
> >>>> an atomic operation. I think we didn't finish this discussion
> >>>> at v1, or did we?
> >>>
> >>> You mean just this assigment:
> >>>>> + matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
> >>> should either have the old or the new value, but not halve zero halve old?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes that is the assignment I was referring to. Old value will work as well
> >> because
> >> kvm holds a reference to this module while in the pqap_hook.
> >>
> >>> Normally this should be ok (and I would consider this a compiler bug if
> >>> this is split into 2 32 bit zeroes) But if you really want to be sure
> >>> then we
> >>> can use WRITE_ONCE.
> >>
> >> Just my curiosity: what would make this a bug? Is it the s390 elf ABI,
> >> or some gcc feature, or even the C standard? Also how exactly would
> >> WRITE_ONCE, also access via volatile help in this particular situation?
> >
> > I think its a tricky things and not strictly guaranteed, but there is a lot
> > of code that relies on the atomicity of word sizes. see for example the
> > discussion
> > here
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgc4+kv9ailokw7cpp429rkcu+vja8cwafyojc3mtq...@mail.gmail.com/
> >
> > WRITE_ONCE will not change the guarantees a lot, but it is mostly a
> > documentation
> > that we assume atomic access here.
>
> After looking again at the code, I think I have to correct myself.
> WRITE_ONCE does not look necessary.
>
Yes, volatile access is not about atomic access. Whether a volatile
access here is a good idea or not, is a different question.
>
> Another thing, though:
> Shouldnt we also replace this code
>
> [...]
> static void vfio_ap_mdev_release(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> {
> struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
>
> mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
> ---> kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> ---> matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
> ---> vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(mdev);
> ---> kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
> ---> matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
> [...]
>
> with vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm ?
Yes, we had something like this in v2 already. Would be good style to
do so.
Regards,
Halil
