[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: make xen_qlock_wait() nestable
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2018 11:03:08 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNHkp1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmRlPsLAeQQTAQIAIwUCU4xw6wIbAwcL CQgHAwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJELDendYovxMvi4UH/Ri+OXlObzqMANruTd4N zmVBAZgx1VW6jLc8JZjQuJPSsd/a+bNr3BZeLV6lu4Pf1Yl2Log129EX1KWYiFFvPbIiq5M5 kOXTO8Eas4CaScCvAZ9jCMQCgK3pFqYgirwTgfwnPtxFxO/F3ZcS8jovza5khkSKL9JGq8Nk czDTruQ/oy0WUHdUr9uwEfiD9yPFOGqp4S6cISuzBMvaAiC5YGdUGXuPZKXLpnGSjkZswUzY d9BVSitRL5ldsQCg6GhDoEAeIhUC4SQnT9SOWkoDOSFRXZ+7+WIBGLiWMd+yKDdRG5RyP/8f 3tgGiB6cyuYfPDRGsELGjUaTUq3H2xZgIPfOwE0EU4xwFgEIAMsx+gDjgzAY4H1hPVXgoLK8 B93sTQFN9oC6tsb46VpxyLPfJ3T1A6Z6MVkLoCejKTJ3K9MUsBZhxIJ0hIyvzwI6aYJsnOew cCiCN7FeKJ/oA1RSUemPGUcIJwQuZlTOiY0OcQ5PFkV5YxMUX1F/aTYXROXgTmSaw0aC1Jpo w7Ss1mg4SIP/tR88/d1+HwkJDVW1RSxC1PWzGizwRv8eauImGdpNnseneO2BNWRXTJumAWDD pYxpGSsGHXuZXTPZqOOZpsHtInFyi5KRHSFyk2Xigzvh3b9WqhbgHHHE4PUVw0I5sIQt8hJq 5nH5dPqz4ITtCL9zjiJsExHuHKN3NZsAEQEAAcLAXwQYAQIACQUCU4xwFgIbDAAKCRCw3p3W KL8TL0P4B/9YWver5uD/y/m0KScK2f3Z3mXJhME23vGBbMNlfwbr+meDMrJZ950CuWWnQ+d+ Ahe0w1X7e3wuLVODzjcReQ/v7b4JD3wwHxe+88tgB9byc0NXzlPJWBaWV01yB2/uefVKryAf AHYEd0gCRhx7eESgNBe3+YqWAQawunMlycsqKa09dBDL1PFRosF708ic9346GLHRc6Vj5SRA UTHnQqLetIOXZm3a2eQ1gpQK9MmruO86Vo93p39bS1mqnLLspVrL4rhoyhsOyh0Hd28QCzpJ wKeHTd0MAWAirmewHXWPco8p1Wg+V+5xfZzuQY0f4tQxvOpXpt4gQ1817GQ5/Ed/wsDtBBgB CAAgFiEEhRJncuj2BJSl0Jf3sN6d1ii/Ey8FAlrd8NACGwIAgQkQsN6d1ii/Ey92IAQZFggA HRYhBFMtsHpB9jjzHji4HoBcYbtP2GO+BQJa3fDQAAoJEIBcYbtP2GO+TYsA/30H/0V6cr/W V+J/FCayg6uNtm3MJLo4rE+o4sdpjjsGAQCooqffpgA+luTT13YZNV62hAnCLKXH9n3+ZAgJ RtAyDWk1B/0SMDVs1wxufMkKC3Q/1D3BYIvBlrTVKdBYXPxngcRoqV2J77lscEvkLNUGsu/z W2pf7+P3mWWlrPMJdlbax00vevyBeqtqNKjHstHatgMZ2W0CFC4hJ3YEetuRBURYPiGzuJXU pAd7a7BdsqWC4o+GTm5tnGrCyD+4gfDSpkOT53S/GNO07YkPkm/8J4OBoFfgSaCnQ1izwgJQ jIpcG2fPCI2/hxf2oqXPYbKr1v4Z1wthmoyUgGN0LPTIm+B5vdY82wI5qe9uN6UOGyTH2B3p hRQUWqCwu2sqkI3LLbTdrnyDZaixT2T0f4tyF5Lfs+Ha8xVMhIyzNb1byDI5FKCb
- Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, lkml <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, longman@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 01 Oct 2018 09:03:18 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
- Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
On 01/10/2018 10:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> 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?
The locks don't need to be the same. A NMI-only lock tried to be
acquired with xen_qlock_wait() for another lock having been interrupted
by the NMI will be enough to risk the issue.
So yes, I believe the test for NMI is good to have.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
