Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] sched: fix race between sched_move_domain() and vcpu_wake()

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/10/13 18:29, David Vrabel wrote:
> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> sched_move_domain() changes v->processor for all the domain's VCPUs.
> If another domain, softirq etc. triggers a simultaneous call to
> vcpu_wake() (e.g., by setting an event channel as pending), then
> vcpu_wake() may lock one schedule lock and try to unlock another.
>
> vcpu_schedule_lock() attempts to handle this but only does so for the
> window between reading the schedule_lock from the per-CPU data and the
> spin_lock() call.  This does not help with sched_move_domain()
> changing v->processor between the calls to vcpu_schedule_lock() and
> vcpu_schedule_unlock().
>
> Fix the race by taking the schedule_lock for v->processor in
> sched_move_domain().
>
> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Just taking the lock for the old processor seemed sufficient to me as
> anything seeing the new value would lock and unlock using the same new
> value.  But do we need to take the schedule_lock for the new processor
> as well (in the right order of course)?

David and I have been discussing this for a while, involving a
whiteboard, and not come to a firm conclusion either way.

From my point of view, holding the appropriate vcpu schedule lock
entitles you to play with vcpu scheduling state, which involves
following v->sched_priv which we update outside the critical region later.

Only taking the one lock still leaves a race condition where another cpu
can follow the new v->processor and obtain the schedule lock, at which
point we have two threads both working on the internals of a vcpu.  The
change below certainly will fix the current bug of locking one spinlock
and unlocking another.

My gut feeling is that we do need to take both locks to be safe in terms
of data access, but we would appreciate advice from someone more
familiar with the scheduler locking.

~Andrew

>
> This is reproducable by constantly migrating a domain between two CPU
> pools.
> 8<------------
> while true; do
>     xl cpupool-migrate $1 Pool-1
>     xl cpupool-migrate $1 Pool-0
> done
> ---
>  xen/common/schedule.c |    7 +++++++
>  1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c
> index 1ddfb22..28e063e 100644
> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> @@ -278,6 +278,9 @@ int sched_move_domain(struct domain *d, struct cpupool *c)
>      new_p = cpumask_first(c->cpu_valid);
>      for_each_vcpu ( d, v )
>      {
> +        spinlock_t *schedule_lock = per_cpu(schedule_data,
> +                                            v->processor).schedule_lock;
> +
>          vcpudata = v->sched_priv;
>  
>          migrate_timer(&v->periodic_timer, new_p);
> @@ -285,7 +288,11 @@ int sched_move_domain(struct domain *d, struct cpupool 
> *c)
>          migrate_timer(&v->poll_timer, new_p);
>  
>          cpumask_setall(v->cpu_affinity);
> +
> +        spin_lock_irq(schedule_lock);
>          v->processor = new_p;
> +        spin_unlock_irq(schedule_lock);
> +
>          v->sched_priv = vcpu_priv[v->vcpu_id];
>          evtchn_move_pirqs(v);
>  


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel