Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] xen/events: access last_priority and last_vcpu_id together

[Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 15.10.20 14:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.10.2020 13:40, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Jan,
> >
> > On 13/10/2020 15:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 13.10.2020 16:20, Jürgen Groß wrote:
> > > > On 13.10.20 15:58, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > On 12.10.2020 11:27, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > > The queue for a fifo event is depending on the vcpu_id and the
> > > > > > priority of the event. When sending an event it might happen the
> > > > > > event needs to change queues and the old queue needs to be kept for
> > > > > > keeping the links between queue elements intact. For this purpose
> > > > > > the event channel contains last_priority and last_vcpu_id values
> > > > > > elements for being able to identify the old queue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In order to avoid races always access last_priority and last_vcpu_id
> > > > > > with a single atomic operation avoiding any inconsistencies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > I seem to vaguely recall that at the time this seemingly racy
> > > > > access was done on purpose by David. Did you go look at the
> > > > > old commits to understand whether there really is a race which
> > > > > can't be tolerated within the spec?
> > > > At least the comments in the code tell us that the race regarding
> > > > the writing of priority (not last_priority) is acceptable.
> > > Ah, then it was comments. I knew I read something to this effect
> > > somewhere, recently.
> > >
> > > > Especially Julien was rather worried by the current situation. In
> > > > case you can convince him the current handling is fine, we can
> > > > easily drop this patch.
> > > Julien, in the light of the above - can you clarify the specific
> > > concerns you (still) have?
> > Let me start with that the assumption if evtchn->lock is not held when
> > evtchn_fifo_set_pending() is called. If it is held, then my comment is moot.
> But this isn't interesting - we know there are paths where it is
> held, and ones (interdomain sending) where it's the remote port's
> lock instead which is held. What's important here is that a
> _consistent_ lock be held (but it doesn't need to be evtchn's).
>
> >   From my understanding, the goal of lock_old_queue() is to return the
> > old queue used.
> >
> > last_priority and last_vcpu_id may be updated separately and I could not
> > convince myself that it would not be possible to return a queue that is
> > neither the current one nor the old one.
> >
> > The following could happen if evtchn->priority and
> > evtchn->notify_vcpu_id keeps changing between calls.
> >
> > pCPU0                           | pCPU1
> >                                 |
> > evtchn_fifo_set_pending(v0,...) |
> >                                 | evtchn_fifo_set_pending(v1, ...)
> >    [...]                                |
> >    /* Queue has changed */      |
> >    evtchn->last_vcpu_id = v0         |
> >                                 | -> evtchn_old_queue()
> >                                 | v = d->vcpu[evtchn->last_vcpu_id];
> >                                 | old_q = ...
> >                                 | spin_lock(old_q->...)
> >                                 | v = ...
> >                                 | q = ...
> >                                 | /* q and old_q would be the same */
> >                                 |
> >    evtchn->las_priority = priority|
> >
> > If my diagram is correct, then pCPU1 would return a queue that is
> > neither the current nor old one.
> I think I agree.
>
> > In which case, I think it would at least be possible to corrupt the
> > queue. From evtchn_fifo_set_pending():
> >
> >           /*
> >            * If this event was a tail, the old queue is now empty and
> >            * its tail must be invalidated to prevent adding an event to
> >            * the old queue from corrupting the new queue.
> >            */
> >           if ( old_q->tail == port )
> >               old_q->tail = 0;
> >
> > Did I miss anything?
> I don't think you did. The important point though is that a consistent
> lock is being held whenever we come here, so two racing set_pending()
> aren't possible for one and the same evtchn. As a result I don't think
> the patch here is actually needed.
Julien, do you agree?

Can i drop this patch?


Juergen