lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/8] KVM: x86: APICv: fix race in kvm_request_apicv_update on SVM
Date
On 13/07/21 16:20, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> + mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->apicv_update_lock);
> +
> vcpu->arch.apicv_active = kvm_apicv_activated(vcpu->kvm);
> kvm_apic_update_apicv(vcpu);
> static_call(kvm_x86_refresh_apicv_exec_ctrl)(vcpu);
> @@ -9246,6 +9248,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_update_apicv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> */
> if (!vcpu->arch.apicv_active)
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu);
> +
> + mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->apicv_update_lock);

Does this whole piece of code need the lock/unlock? Does it work and/or
make sense to do the unlock immediately after mutex_lock()? This makes
it clearer that the mutex is being to synchronize against the requestor.

> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index ed4d1581d502..ba5d5d9ebc64 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -943,6 +943,7 @@ static struct kvm *kvm_create_vm(unsigned long type)
> mutex_init(&kvm->irq_lock);
> mutex_init(&kvm->slots_lock);
> mutex_init(&kvm->slots_arch_lock);
> + mutex_init(&kvm->apicv_update_lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->devices);
>
> BUILD_BUG_ON(KVM_MEM_SLOTS_NUM > SHRT_MAX);
>

Please add comments above fields that are protected by this lock
(anything but apicv_inhibit_reasons?), and especially move it to kvm->arch.

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-07-27 00:36    [W:0.065 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site