Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait() nestable

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 01.10.18 at 09:16, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> 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



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel