Re: [Xen-devel] Issues with the xen-access.c model

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 05/04/16 11:55, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
> Hello,
>
> xen-access.c does roughly this:
>
> for (;;) {
>       poll_evt_channel();
>
>       if (new_events) {
>               while (ring_buffer_has_requests) {
>                       pull_request();
>                       process_request();
>                       put_response();
>               }
>
>               signal_evt_channel();
>       }
> }
>
> The problems are these:
>
> 1. vm_event_put_request() does notify_via_xen_event_channel(d,
> ved->xen_port); at the very end, and we seem to be using a FIFO event
> channel (if I'm reading the code right, it's generic event channel code
> that pre-dates the vm_event code that sits on top of it).
>
> This means that for a guest that's running two VCPUs, the following
> scenario is possible:
>
> * VCPU1 puts an event in the ring buffer
> * VCPU1 signals the event channel
> * poll_evt_channel() wakes up
> * VCPU2 puts an event in the ring buffer
> * the loop processes the first event
> * VCPU2 signals the event channel
> * the loop processes the second event (since there _are_ more requests
> in the ring buffer)
> * the loop signals the event channel that requests have been processed
> * poll_evt_channel() wakes up again, because of the second event channel
> signal, but this is pointless since all events have already been processed
>
> This can be avoided by counting the requests processed vs. the number of
> succesful poll()s, but it still does not solve the second problem:
>
> 2. Race conditions. At least in theory, there's nothing to stop the
> second iteration of the request processing loop to read a partially
> written request from the ring buffer, or garbage left over from a
> previous request, if it hits it "just right" (i.e. the "VCPU2 puts an
> event in the ring buffer" part can run on top of the "the loop processes
> the second event").
>
> All this doesn't really show up unless we're in heavy processing
> scenarios, but they can occur, especially in synced vm_event scenarios.
>
> The problems seems to be alleviated by changing the loop to this:
>
> for (;;) {
>       poll_evt_channel();
>
>       if (new_events) {
>               while (ring_buffer_has_requests) {
>                       pull_request();
>                       process_request();
>                       put_response();
>
>                       /* Moved here. */
>                       signal_evt_channel();
>               }
>       }
> }
>
> but it's obviously not foolproof, the main problem remaining the
> synchronization of the ring buffer from both the hypervisor side and
> userspace.
>
> How should we proceed to fix this?

The vm_event code in Xen must increment the producer index as the final
action of putting a request on the ring.  If it doesn't then it is
simply broken and needs fixing.

This will ensure that the consumer never sees a partial request on the
ring; by the time it observes a newer producer index, all data is
already written.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel