-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 431
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
rust: helpers: Clarify comment on size_t = uintptr_t guard #330
Conversation
Fixes #329. (Also happy to see this squashed into whatever, it's effectively cleaning up old linux-kernel-module-rust code and making it presentable :) ) |
@geofft can you rebase this on a more recent |
The reason that the CI is not running is that this is against Given GitHub does not seem to allow to simply disable PR functionality, and only allows to "protect" some branches (which is enforced on pushes too), I will make @ksquirrel warn about it. Give me a moment to test it. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Also fix the guard to not fail spriously on ARM. We just need the types to be ABI-compatible; we don't need C to be willing to implicitly convert between them. Signed-off-by: Geoffrey Thomas <[email protected]>
Review of
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
(edited) no worries!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Will let other folks have a look at this before merging.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like this a lot! 💯
I also noticed that size_t
and unsigned long
were completely identical on arm32
, yet gcc didn't think they were compatible. I'd love to further understand the underlying reason for that.
But that definitely shouldn't hold up this PR!
See discussion in #329, but tl;dr the two underlying types are |
Indeed. I just don't get why two types which are both 32-bit, unsigned, and using the same rules for arithmetic etc would end up as being marked "not compatible" by gcc / |
It is just what the C standard says in 6.7.2: |
I'm looking for the "facepalm" emoji but can't find it on GitHub :) |
Use a dedicated mutex to guard kvm_usage_count to fix a potential deadlock on x86 due to a chain of locks and SRCU synchronizations. Translating the below lockdep splat, CPU1 #6 will wait on CPU0 #1, CPU0 #8 will wait on CPU2 #3, and CPU2 #7 will wait on CPU1 #4 (if there's a writer, due to the fairness of r/w semaphores). CPU0 CPU1 CPU2 1 lock(&kvm->slots_lock); 2 lock(&vcpu->mutex); 3 lock(&kvm->srcu); 4 lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); 5 lock(kvm_lock); 6 lock(&kvm->slots_lock); 7 lock(cpu_hotplug_lock); 8 sync(&kvm->srcu); Note, there are likely more potential deadlocks in KVM x86, e.g. the same pattern of taking cpu_hotplug_lock outside of kvm_lock likely exists with __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(): cpuhp_cpufreq_online() | -> cpufreq_online() | -> cpufreq_gov_performance_limits() | -> __cpufreq_driver_target() | -> __target_index() | -> cpufreq_freq_transition_begin() | -> cpufreq_notify_transition() | -> ... __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier() But, actually triggering such deadlocks is beyond rare due to the combination of dependencies and timings involved. E.g. the cpufreq notifier is only used on older CPUs without a constant TSC, mucking with the NX hugepage mitigation while VMs are running is very uncommon, and doing so while also onlining/offlining a CPU (necessary to generate contention on cpu_hotplug_lock) would be even more unusual. The most robust solution to the general cpu_hotplug_lock issue is likely to switch vm_list to be an RCU-protected list, e.g. so that x86's cpufreq notifier doesn't to take kvm_lock. For now, settle for fixing the most blatant deadlock, as switching to an RCU-protected list is a much more involved change, but add a comment in locking.rst to call out that care needs to be taken when walking holding kvm_lock and walking vm_list. ====================================================== WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected 6.10.0-smp--c257535a0c9d-pip #330 Tainted: G S O ------------------------------------------------------ tee/35048 is trying to acquire lock: ff6a80eced71e0a8 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm] but task is already holding lock: ffffffffc07abb08 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x14a/0x1e0 [kvm] which lock already depends on the new lock. the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: -> #3 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40 mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30 kvm_dev_ioctl+0x4fb/0xe50 [kvm] __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30 x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60 do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e -> #2 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}: cpus_read_lock+0x2e/0xb0 static_key_slow_inc+0x16/0x30 kvm_lapic_set_base+0x6a/0x1c0 [kvm] kvm_set_apic_base+0x8f/0xe0 [kvm] kvm_set_msr_common+0x9ae/0xf80 [kvm] vmx_set_msr+0xa54/0xbe0 [kvm_intel] __kvm_set_msr+0xb6/0x1a0 [kvm] kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl+0xeca/0x10c0 [kvm] kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x485/0x5b0 [kvm] __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30 x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60 do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e -> #1 (&kvm->srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}: __synchronize_srcu+0x44/0x1a0 synchronize_srcu_expedited+0x21/0x30 kvm_swap_active_memslots+0x110/0x1c0 [kvm] kvm_set_memslot+0x360/0x620 [kvm] __kvm_set_memory_region+0x27b/0x300 [kvm] kvm_vm_ioctl_set_memory_region+0x43/0x60 [kvm] kvm_vm_ioctl+0x295/0x650 [kvm] __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0 __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30 x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60 do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e -> #0 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}: __lock_acquire+0x15ef/0x2e30 lock_acquire+0xe0/0x260 __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40 mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30 set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm] param_attr_store+0x93/0x100 module_attr_store+0x22/0x40 sysfs_kf_write+0x81/0xb0 kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x133/0x1d0 vfs_write+0x28d/0x380 ksys_write+0x70/0xe0 __x64_sys_write+0x1f/0x30 x64_sys_call+0x281b/0x2e60 do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e Cc: Chao Gao <[email protected]> Fixes: 0bf5049 ("KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock") Cc: [email protected] Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <[email protected]> Acked-by: Kai Huang <[email protected]> Tested-by: Farrah Chen <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
Also fix the guard to not fail spriously on ARM. We just need the types
to be ABI-compatible; we don't need C to be willing to implicitly
convert between them.
Signed-off-by: Geoffrey Thomas [email protected]