Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Message-ID: <4afce434-ab25-66d6-76f4-3a987f64e88e@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:58:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] KVM: SEV: Mark nested locking of vcpu->lock
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Gonda <pgonda@google.com>
Cc:     John Sperbeck <jsperbeck@google.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220407195908.633003-1-pgonda@google.com>
 <CAFNjLiXC0AdOw5f8Ovu47D==ex7F0=WN_Ocirymz4xL=mWvC5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6r-Mc_YN-gVHuCpTj4E1EmcvyYpP9jhtHo5HRHnoNJAdA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6r+OMPWCbV_svUyGWa0qMzjj2UEG29G6P7jb6uH6yko2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <62e9ece1-5d71-f803-3f65-2755160cf1d1@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6q6YLBfo2RceduSXTafckEehawhD4K4hUEuB4ZNqe2kKg@mail.gmail.com>
 <4c0edc90-36a1-4f4c-1923-4b20e7bdbb4c@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6oL5qi7z-eh4z7z8WBhpc=Ow6WtcJA5bDi6-aGMnz135A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMkAt6rmDrZfN5DbNOTsKFV57PwEnK2zxgBTCbEPeE206+5v5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <0d282be4-d612-374d-84ba-067994321bab@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6ragq4OmnX+n628Yd5pn51qFv4qV20upGR6tTvyYw3U5A@mail.gmail.com>
 <8a2c5f8c-503c-b4f0-75e7-039533c9852d@redhat.com>
 <CAMkAt6qAW5zFyTAqX_Az2DT2J3KROPo4u-Ak1sC0J+UTUeFfXA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMkAt6qAW5zFyTAqX_Az2DT2J3KROPo4u-Ak1sC0J+UTUeFfXA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 4/29/22 17:51, Peter Gonda wrote:
>> No, you don't need any of this.  You can rely on there being only one
>> depmap, otherwise you wouldn't need the mock releases and acquires at
>> all.  Also the unlocking order does not matter for deadlocks, only the
>> locking order does.  You're overdoing it. :)
> 
> Hmm I'm slightly confused here then. If I take your original suggestion of:
> 
>          bool acquired = false;
>          kvm_for_each_vcpu(...) {
>                  if (acquired)
>                          mutex_release(&vcpu->mutex.dep_map,
> _THIS_IP_);  <-- Warning here
>                  if (mutex_lock_killable_nested(&vcpu->mutex, role)
>                          goto out_unlock;
>                  acquired = true;
> 
> """
> [ 2810.088982] =====================================
> [ 2810.093687] WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
> [ 2810.098388] 5.17.0-dbg-DEV #5 Tainted: G           O
> [ 2810.103788] -------------------------------------

Ah even if the contents of the dep_map are the same for all locks, it 
also uses the *pointer* to the dep_map to track (class, subclass) -> 
pointer and checks for a match.

So yeah, prev_cpu is needed.  The unlock ordering OTOH is irrelevant so 
you don't need to visit the xarray backwards.

Paolo