Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210427223635.2711774-1-bgardon@google.com> <20210427223635.2711774-6-bgardon@google.com>
 <997f9fe3-847b-8216-c629-1ad5fdd2ffae@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <997f9fe3-847b-8216-c629-1ad5fdd2ffae@redhat.com>
From:   Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Apr 2021 09:40:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CANgfPd8RZXQ-BamwQPS66Q5hLRZaDFhi0WaA=ZvCP4BbofiUhg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Protect kvm->memslots with a mutex
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
        Junaid Shahid <junaids@google.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Yulei Zhang <yulei.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 11:25 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 28/04/21 00:36, Ben Gardon wrote:
> > +void kvm_arch_assign_memslots(struct kvm *kvm, int as_id,
> > +                          struct kvm_memslots *slots)
> > +{
> > +     mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.memslot_assignment_lock);
> > +     rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->memslots[as_id], slots);
> > +     mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.memslot_assignment_lock);
> > +}
>
> Does the assignment also needs the lock, or only the rmap allocation?  I
> would prefer the hook to be something like kvm_arch_setup_new_memslots.

The assignment does need to be under the lock to prevent the following race:
1. Thread 1 (installing a new memslot): Acquires memslot assignment
lock (or perhaps in this case rmap_allocation_lock would be more apt.)
2. Thread 1: Check alloc_memslot_rmaps (it is false)
3. Thread 1: doesn't allocate memslot rmaps for new slot
4. Thread 1: Releases memslot assignment lock
5. Thread 2 (allocating a shadow root): Acquires memslot assignment lock
6. Thread 2: Sets alloc_memslot_rmaps = true
7. Thread 2: Allocates rmaps for all existing slots
8. Thread 2: Releases memslot assignment lock
9. Thread 2: Sets shadow_mmu_active = true
10. Thread 1: Installs the new memslots
11. Thread 3: Null pointer dereference when trying to access rmaps on
the new slot.

Putting the assignment under the lock prevents 5-8 from happening
between 2 and 10.

I'm open to other ideas as far as how to prevent this race though. I
admit this solution is not the most elegant looking.

>
> (Also it is useful to have a comment somewhere explaining why the
> slots_lock does not work.  IIUC there would be a deadlock because you'd
> be taking the slots_lock inside an SRCU critical region, while usually
> the slots_lock critical section is the one that includes a
> synchronize_srcu; I should dig that up and document that ordering in
> Documentation/virt/kvm too).

Yeah, sorry about that. I should have added a comment to that effect.
As you suspected, it's because of the slots lock / SRCU deadlock.
Using the slots lock was my original implementation, until the
deadlock issue came up.

I can add comments about that in a v2.

>
> Paolo
>