[PATCH v3] KVM: arm/arm64: vgic-new: Synchronize changes to active state
Christoffer Dall
christoffer.dall at linaro.org
Fri May 20 07:49:08 PDT 2016
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 03:47:01PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/05/16 15:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 20/05/16 15:31, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> When modifying the active state of an interrupt via the MMIO interface,
> >> we should ensure that the write has the intended effect.
> >>
> >> If a guest sets an interrupt to active, but that interrupt is already
> >> flushed into a list register on a running VCPU, then that VCPU will
> >> write the active state back into the struct vgic_irq upon returning from
> >> the guest and syncing its state. This is a non-benign race, because the
> >> guest can observe that an interrupt is not active, and it can have a
> >> reasonable expectations that other VCPUs will not ack any IRQs, and then
> >> set the state to active, and expect it to stay that way. Currently we
> >> are not honoring this case.
> >>
> >> Thefore, change both the SACTIVE and CACTIVE mmio handlers to stop the
> >> world, change the irq state, potentially queue the irq if we're setting
> >> it to active, and then continue.
> >>
> >> We take this chance to slightly optimize these functions by not stopping
> >> the world when touching private interrupts where there is inherently no
> >> possible race.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >> Changes since v1:
> >> - Dont' stop the world for private IRQs
> >> Changes since v2:
> >> - Explicitly stop the VCPU that private IRQs target because GICv3
> >> redistributors allow any VCPU to tamper with the active state of
> >> interrupts private to another VCPU.
> >>
> >> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +
> >> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 8 ++-
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +
> >> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >> 4 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index 832be03..987da9f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -229,6 +229,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arm_get_running_vcpu(void);
> >> struct kvm_vcpu __percpu **kvm_get_running_vcpus(void);
> >> void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >> void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >> +void kvm_arm_halt_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> +void kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>
> >> int kvm_arm_copy_coproc_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices);
> >> unsigned long kvm_arm_num_coproc_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> >> index e89329d..5a599c2 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> >> @@ -502,7 +502,13 @@ void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm)
> >> kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_VCPU_EXIT);
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static void kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +void kvm_arm_halt_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + vcpu->arch.pause = true;
> >> + kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +void kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> {
> >> struct swait_queue_head *wq = kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu);
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> index fa94f91..38746d2 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -329,6 +329,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_arm_get_running_vcpu(void);
> >> struct kvm_vcpu * __percpu *kvm_get_running_vcpus(void);
> >> void kvm_arm_halt_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >> void kvm_arm_resume_guest(struct kvm *kvm);
> >> +void kvm_arm_halt_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >> +void kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>
> >> u64 __kvm_call_hyp(void *hypfn, ...);
> >> #define kvm_call_hyp(f, ...) __kvm_call_hyp(kvm_ksym_ref(f), ##__VA_ARGS__)
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> >> index 4ef3571..059595e 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> >> @@ -173,6 +173,66 @@ unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> return value;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void vgic_mmio_change_active(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_irq *irq,
> >> + bool new_active_state)
> >> +{
> >> + spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> >> + /*
> >> + * If this virtual IRQ was written into a list register, we
> >> + * have to make sure the CPU that runs the VCPU thread has
> >> + * synced back LR state to the struct vgic_irq. We can only
> >> + * know this for sure, when either this irq is not assigned to
> >> + * anyone's AP list anymore, or the VCPU thread is not
> >> + * running on any CPUs.
> >> + *
> >> + * In the opposite case, we know the VCPU thread may be on its
> >> + * way back from the guest and still has to sync back this
> >> + * IRQ, so we release and re-acquire the spin_lock to let the
> >> + * other thread sync back the IRQ.
> >> + */
> >> + while (irq->vcpu && /* IRQ may have state in an LR somewhere */
> >> + irq->vcpu->cpu != -1) { /* VCPU thread is running */
> >> + BUG_ON(irq->intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS);
> >> + cond_resched_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + irq->active = new_active_state;
> >> + if (new_active_state)
> >> + vgic_queue_irq_unlock(vcpu->kvm, irq);
> >> + else
> >> + spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * If we are fiddling with an IRQ's active state, we have to make sure the IRQ
> >> + * is not queued on some running VCPU's LRs, because then the change to the
> >> + * active state can be overwritten when the VCPU's state is synced coming back
> >> + * from the guest.
> >> + *
> >> + * For shared interrupts, we have to stop all the VCPUs because interrupts can
> >> + * be migrated while we don't hold the IRQ locks and we don't want to be
> >> + * chasing moving targets.
> >> + *
> >> + * For private interrupts, we only have to make sure the single and only VCPU
> >> + * that can potentially queue the IRQ is stopped.
> >> + */
> >> +static void vgic_change_active_prepare(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> >> +{
> >> + if (intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> >> + kvm_arm_halt_vcpu(vcpu);
> >> + else
> >> + kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/* See vgic_change_active_prepare */
> >> +static void vgic_change_active_finish(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 intid)
> >> +{
> >> + if (intid < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS)
> >> + kvm_arm_resume_vcpu(vcpu);
> >> + else
> >> + kvm_arm_resume_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
> >> unsigned long val)
> >> @@ -180,32 +240,12 @@ void vgic_mmio_write_cactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >> u32 intid = VGIC_ADDR_TO_INTID(addr, 1);
> >> int i;
> >>
> >> - kvm_arm_halt_guest(vcpu->kvm);
> >> + vgic_change_active_prepare(vcpu, intid);
> >
> > You're still only halting the current vcpu, not the one targeted by the
> > interrupt.
> >
> > Let's not bother with that for the time being. I'm happy to merge v1,
> > and optimize this when this starts bugging us (and this is going to take
> > a while).
>
> Actually, I now realize that you are right. The MMIO handler is passing
> us the target vcpu, not the the one causing the exit. I'm an idiot.
You are most certainly not.
>
> So this looks fine to me.
>
Cool, thanks.
-Christoffer
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list