Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-Id: <5BB1E18802000078001ED127@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date:   Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:57:44 -0600
From:   "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To:     "Juergen Gross" <jgross@suse.com>
Cc:     "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "xen-devel" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
        "Boris Ostrovsky" <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        <longman@redhat.com>, <mingo@redhat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
        <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait()
 nestable
References: <20181001071641.19282-1-jgross@suse.com>
 <20181001071641.19282-3-jgross@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181001071641.19282-3-jgross@suse.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> On 01.10.18 at 09:16, <jgross@suse.com> wrote:
> xen_qlock_wait() isn't safe for nested calls due to interrupts. A call
> of xen_qlock_kick() might be ignored in case a deeper nesting level
> was active right before the call of xen_poll_irq():
> 
> CPU 1:                                   CPU 2:
> spin_lock(lock1)
>                                          spin_lock(lock1)
>                                          -> xen_qlock_wait()
>                                             -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
>                                             Interrupt happens
> spin_unlock(lock1)
> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
> spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
>                                          spin_lock_irqsave(lock2)
>                                          -> xen_qlock_wait()
>                                             -> xen_clear_irq_pending()
>                                                clears kick for lock1
>                                             -> xen_poll_irq()
> spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
> -> xen_qlock_kick(CPU 2)
>                                             wakes up
>                                          spin_unlock_irq_restore(lock2)
>                                          IRET
>                                            resumes in xen_qlock_wait()
>                                            -> xen_poll_irq()
>                                            never wakes up
> 
> The solution is to disable interrupts in xen_qlock_wait() and not to
> poll for the irq in case xen_qlock_wait() is called in nmi context.

Are precautions against NMI really worthwhile? Locks acquired both
in NMI context as well as outside of it are liable to deadlock anyway,
aren't they?

Jan