LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org>,
	"Russell King, ARM Linux" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, gor <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, paulmck <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-csky <linux-csky@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mips <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-kselftest <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Foley <pefoley@google.com>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
	Ben Gardon <bgardon@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: selftests: Add a test for KVM_RUN+rseq to detect task migration bugs
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 00:51:54 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YSblqrrpKcORzilX@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <282257549.21721.1629732017655.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>

On Mon, Aug 23, 2021, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [ re-send to Darren Hart ]
> 
> ----- On Aug 23, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com wrote:
> 
> > ----- On Aug 20, 2021, at 6:50 PM, Sean Christopherson seanjc@google.com wrote:
> > 
> >> Add a test to verify an rseq's CPU ID is updated correctly if the task is
> >> migrated while the kernel is handling KVM_RUN.  This is a regression test
> >> for a bug introduced by commit 72c3c0fe54a3 ("x86/kvm: Use generic xfer
> >> to guest work function"), where TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME would be cleared by KVM
> >> without updating rseq, leading to a stale CPU ID and other badness.
> >> 
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > +#define RSEQ_SIG 0xdeadbeef
> > 
> > Is there any reason for defining a custom signature rather than including
> > tools/testing/selftests/rseq/rseq.h ? This should take care of including
> > the proper architecture header which will define the appropriate signature.
> > 
> > Arguably you don't define rseq critical sections in this test per se, but
> > I'm wondering why the custom signature here.

Partly to avoid taking a dependency on rseq.h, and partly to try to call out that
the test doesn't actually do any rseq critical sections.

> > [...]
> > 
> >> +
> >> +static void *migration_worker(void *ign)
> >> +{
> >> +	cpu_set_t allowed_mask;
> >> +	int r, i, nr_cpus, cpu;
> >> +
> >> +	CPU_ZERO(&allowed_mask);
> >> +
> >> +	nr_cpus = CPU_COUNT(&possible_mask);
> >> +
> >> +	for (i = 0; i < 20000; i++) {
> >> +		cpu = i % nr_cpus;
> >> +		if (!CPU_ISSET(cpu, &possible_mask))
> >> +			continue;
> >> +
> >> +		CPU_SET(cpu, &allowed_mask);
> >> +
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Bump the sequence count twice to allow the reader to detect
> >> +		 * that a migration may have occurred in between rseq and sched
> >> +		 * CPU ID reads.  An odd sequence count indicates a migration
> >> +		 * is in-progress, while a completely different count indicates
> >> +		 * a migration occurred since the count was last read.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		atomic_inc(&seq_cnt);
> > 
> > So technically this atomic_inc contains the required barriers because the
> > selftests implementation uses "__sync_add_and_fetch(&addr->val, 1)". But
> > it's rather odd that the semantic differs from the kernel implementation in
> > terms of memory barriers: the kernel implementation of atomic_inc
> > guarantees no memory barriers, but this one happens to provide full
> > barriers pretty much by accident (selftests futex/include/atomic.h
> > documents no such guarantee).

Yeah, I got quite lost trying to figure out what atomics the test would actually
end up with.

> > If this full barrier guarantee is indeed provided by the selftests atomic.h
> > header, I would really like a comment stating that in the atomic.h header
> > so the carpet is not pulled from under our feet by a future optimization.
> > 
> > 
> >> +		r = sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(allowed_mask), &allowed_mask);
> >> +		TEST_ASSERT(!r, "sched_setaffinity failed, errno = %d (%s)",
> >> +			    errno, strerror(errno));
> >> +		atomic_inc(&seq_cnt);
> >> +
> >> +		CPU_CLR(cpu, &allowed_mask);
> >> +
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * Let the read-side get back into KVM_RUN to improve the odds
> >> +		 * of task migration coinciding with KVM's run loop.
> > 
> > This comment should be about increasing the odds of letting the seqlock
> > read-side complete. Otherwise, the delay between the two back-to-back
> > atomic_inc is so small that the seqlock read-side may never have time to
> > complete the reading the rseq cpu id and the sched_getcpu() call, and can
> > retry forever.

Hmm, but that's not why there's a delay.  I'm not arguing that a livelock isn't
possible (though that syscall would have to be screaming fast), but the primary
motivation is very much to allow the read-side enough time to get back into KVM
proper.

To encounter the bug, TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME has to be recognized by KVM in its run
loop, i.e. sched_setaffinity() must induce task migration after the read-side has
invoked ioctl(KVM_RUN).

> > I'm wondering if 1 microsecond is sufficient on other architectures as
> > well.

I'm definitely wondering that as well :-)

> > One alternative way to make this depend less on the architecture's
> > implementation of sched_getcpu (whether it's a vDSO, or goes through a
> > syscall) would be to read the rseq cpu id and call sched_getcpu a few times
> > (e.g. 3 times) in the migration thread rather than use usleep, and throw
> > away the value read. This would ensure the delay is appropriate on all
> > architectures.

As above, I think an arbitrary delay is required regardless of how fast
sched_getcpu() can execute.  One thought would be to do sched_getcpu() _and_
usleep() to account for sched_getcpu() overhead and to satisfy the KVM_RUN part,
but I don't know that that adds meaningful value.

The real test is if someone could see if the bug repros on non-x86 hardware...

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-26  0:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-20 22:49 [PATCH v2 0/5] KVM: rseq: Fix and a test for a KVM+rseq bug Sean Christopherson
2021-08-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] KVM: rseq: Update rseq when processing NOTIFY_RESUME on xfer to KVM guest Sean Christopherson
2021-08-23 15:00   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-20 22:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] entry: rseq: Call rseq_handle_notify_resume() in tracehook_notify_resume() Sean Christopherson
2021-08-20 22:50 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] tools: Move x86 syscall number fallbacks to .../uapi/ Sean Christopherson
2021-08-20 22:50 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: selftests: Add a test for KVM_RUN+rseq to detect task migration bugs Sean Christopherson
2021-08-23 15:18   ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-23 15:20     ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-26  0:51       ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2021-08-26 18:42         ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-26 23:54           ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-27 19:09             ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-27 23:23               ` Sean Christopherson
2021-08-28  0:06                 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2021-08-20 22:50 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] KVM: selftests: Remove __NR_userfaultfd syscall fallback Sean Christopherson
2021-08-23 23:46   ` Ben Gardon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YSblqrrpKcORzilX@google.com \
    --to=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=bgardon@google.com \
    --cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
    --cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
    --cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=guoren@kernel.org \
    --cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-csky@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=paulmck@kernel.org \
    --cc=paulus@samba.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=pefoley@google.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tsbogend@alpha.franken.de \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] KVM: selftests: Add a test for KVM_RUN+rseq to detect task migration bugs' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).