[v2] KVM: arm64: Don't acquire RCU read lock for exclusive table walks
Commit Message
Marek reported a BUG resulting from the recent parallel faults changes,
as the hyp stage-1 map walker attempted to allocate table memory while
holding the RCU read lock:
BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
include/linux/sched/mm.h:274
in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1, name: swapper/0
preempt_count: 0, expected: 0
RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0
2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
#0: ffff80000a8a44d0 (kvm_hyp_pgd_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
__create_hyp_mappings+0x80/0xc4
#1: ffff80000a927720 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
kvm_pgtable_walk+0x0/0x1f4
CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3+ #5918
Hardware name: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B (DT)
Call trace:
dump_backtrace.part.0+0xe4/0xf0
show_stack+0x18/0x40
dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xb8
dump_stack+0x18/0x34
__might_resched+0x178/0x220
__might_sleep+0x48/0xa0
prepare_alloc_pages+0x178/0x1a0
__alloc_pages+0x9c/0x109c
alloc_page_interleave+0x1c/0xc4
alloc_pages+0xec/0x160
get_zeroed_page+0x1c/0x44
kvm_hyp_zalloc_page+0x14/0x20
hyp_map_walker+0xd4/0x134
kvm_pgtable_visitor_cb.isra.0+0x38/0x5c
__kvm_pgtable_walk+0x1a4/0x220
kvm_pgtable_walk+0x104/0x1f4
kvm_pgtable_hyp_map+0x80/0xc4
__create_hyp_mappings+0x9c/0xc4
kvm_mmu_init+0x144/0x1cc
kvm_arch_init+0xe4/0xef4
kvm_init+0x3c/0x3d0
arm_init+0x20/0x30
do_one_initcall+0x74/0x400
kernel_init_freeable+0x2e0/0x350
kernel_init+0x24/0x130
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
Since the hyp stage-1 table walkers are serialized by kvm_hyp_pgd_mutex,
RCU protection really doesn't add anything. Don't acquire the RCU read
lock for an exclusive walk. While at it, add a warning which codifies
the lack of support for shared walks in the hypervisor code.
Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
---
Applies on top of the parallel faults series that was picked up last
week. Tested with kvm-arm.mode={nvhe,protected} on an Ampere Altra
system.
v1 -> v2:
- Took Will's suggestion of conditioning RCU on a flag, small tweak to
use existing bit instead (Thanks!)
arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 5 +++--
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Comments
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 22:55:02 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> Marek reported a BUG resulting from the recent parallel faults changes,
> as the hyp stage-1 map walker attempted to allocate table memory while
> holding the RCU read lock:
>
> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> include/linux/sched/mm.h:274
> in_atomic(): 0, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 1, name: swapper/0
> preempt_count: 0, expected: 0
> RCU nest depth: 1, expected: 0
> 2 locks held by swapper/0/1:
> #0: ffff80000a8a44d0 (kvm_hyp_pgd_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at:
> __create_hyp_mappings+0x80/0xc4
> #1: ffff80000a927720 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:2}, at:
> kvm_pgtable_walk+0x0/0x1f4
> CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc3+ #5918
> Hardware name: Raspberry Pi 3 Model B (DT)
> Call trace:
> dump_backtrace.part.0+0xe4/0xf0
> show_stack+0x18/0x40
> dump_stack_lvl+0x8c/0xb8
> dump_stack+0x18/0x34
> __might_resched+0x178/0x220
> __might_sleep+0x48/0xa0
> prepare_alloc_pages+0x178/0x1a0
> __alloc_pages+0x9c/0x109c
> alloc_page_interleave+0x1c/0xc4
> alloc_pages+0xec/0x160
> get_zeroed_page+0x1c/0x44
> kvm_hyp_zalloc_page+0x14/0x20
> hyp_map_walker+0xd4/0x134
> kvm_pgtable_visitor_cb.isra.0+0x38/0x5c
> __kvm_pgtable_walk+0x1a4/0x220
> kvm_pgtable_walk+0x104/0x1f4
> kvm_pgtable_hyp_map+0x80/0xc4
> __create_hyp_mappings+0x9c/0xc4
> kvm_mmu_init+0x144/0x1cc
> kvm_arch_init+0xe4/0xef4
> kvm_init+0x3c/0x3d0
> arm_init+0x20/0x30
> do_one_initcall+0x74/0x400
> kernel_init_freeable+0x2e0/0x350
> kernel_init+0x24/0x130
> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> Since the hyp stage-1 table walkers are serialized by kvm_hyp_pgd_mutex,
> RCU protection really doesn't add anything. Don't acquire the RCU read
> lock for an exclusive walk. While at it, add a warning which codifies
> the lack of support for shared walks in the hypervisor code.
>
> Reported-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
> ---
>
> Applies on top of the parallel faults series that was picked up last
> week. Tested with kvm-arm.mode={nvhe,protected} on an Ampere Altra
> system.
>
> v1 -> v2:
> - Took Will's suggestion of conditioning RCU on a flag, small tweak to
> use existing bit instead (Thanks!)
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 5 +++--
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> index a874ce0ce7b5..d4c7321fa652 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_pgtable.h
> @@ -51,8 +51,16 @@ static inline kvm_pte_t *kvm_dereference_pteref(kvm_pteref_t pteref, bool shared
> return pteref;
> }
>
> -static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(void) {}
> -static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(void) {}
> +static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(bool shared)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Due to the lack of RCU (or a similar protection scheme), only
> + * non-shared table walkers are allowed in the hypervisor.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(shared);
> +}
> +
> +static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(bool shared) {}
>
> static inline bool kvm_pgtable_walk_lock_held(void)
> {
> @@ -68,14 +76,16 @@ static inline kvm_pte_t *kvm_dereference_pteref(kvm_pteref_t pteref, bool shared
> return rcu_dereference_check(pteref, !shared);
> }
>
> -static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(void)
> +static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(bool shared)
I'm not crazy about this sort of parameters. I think it would make a
lot more sense to pass a pointer to the walker structure and do the
flag check inside the helper.
That way, we avoid extra churn if/when we need extra state or
bookkeeping around the walk.
Thanks,
M.
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:08:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> I'm not crazy about this sort of parameters. I think it would make a
> lot more sense to pass a pointer to the walker structure and do the
> flag check inside the helper.
>
> That way, we avoid extra churn if/when we need extra state or
> bookkeeping around the walk.
Sure, let's go that way instead. v3 on the way lol :)
--
Thanks,
Oliver
On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 07:27:27AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 03:08:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > I'm not crazy about this sort of parameters. I think it would make a
> > lot more sense to pass a pointer to the walker structure and do the
> > flag check inside the helper.
> >
> > That way, we avoid extra churn if/when we need extra state or
> > bookkeeping around the walk.
>
> Sure, let's go that way instead. v3 on the way lol :)
Well, going this route is going to require hoisting around a few things.
I'd very much prefer to keep the RCU indirection ifdeffery all in one
place, but I'll need to haul it all after the definitions of kvm_pgtable_walker
and kvm_pgtable_walk_flags but before the definition of kvm_pgtable
(as it needs kvm_pteref_t).
I'm not too bothered by it, but not quite as small of a bandaid this
time around.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
@@ -51,8 +51,16 @@ static inline kvm_pte_t *kvm_dereference_pteref(kvm_pteref_t pteref, bool shared
return pteref;
}
-static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(void) {}
-static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(void) {}
+static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(bool shared)
+{
+ /*
+ * Due to the lack of RCU (or a similar protection scheme), only
+ * non-shared table walkers are allowed in the hypervisor.
+ */
+ WARN_ON(shared);
+}
+
+static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(bool shared) {}
static inline bool kvm_pgtable_walk_lock_held(void)
{
@@ -68,14 +76,16 @@ static inline kvm_pte_t *kvm_dereference_pteref(kvm_pteref_t pteref, bool shared
return rcu_dereference_check(pteref, !shared);
}
-static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(void)
+static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(bool shared)
{
- rcu_read_lock();
+ if (shared)
+ rcu_read_lock();
}
-static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(void)
+static inline void kvm_pgtable_walk_end(bool shared)
{
- rcu_read_unlock();
+ if (shared)
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
static inline bool kvm_pgtable_walk_lock_held(void)
@@ -287,11 +287,12 @@ int kvm_pgtable_walk(struct kvm_pgtable *pgt, u64 addr, u64 size,
.end = PAGE_ALIGN(walk_data.addr + size),
.walker = walker,
};
+ bool shared = walker->flags & KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_SHARED;
int r;
- kvm_pgtable_walk_begin();
+ kvm_pgtable_walk_begin(shared);
r = _kvm_pgtable_walk(pgt, &walk_data);
- kvm_pgtable_walk_end();
+ kvm_pgtable_walk_end(shared);
return r;
}