Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/arm: fix rank/vgic locks inversion bug

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Stefano,

On 20/12/2016 00:22, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> >
> > On 19/12/2016 23:30, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > > > 2) We run gic_update_one_lr and vgic_store_itargetsr in parallel
> > > > > > safely
> > > > > > and locklessly. There might be a way to do it, but it is not easy I
> > > > > > haven't found it yet.
> > > > Correct me if I am wrong. There are no restriction to write into
> > > > IROUTER/ITARGETSR while an IRQ is pending. So the irq_set_affinity could
> > > > be
> > > > called once at the beginning of vgic_irq_migrate.
> > > >
> > > > We may receive the interrupt on the wrong physical CPU at the beginning.
> > > > But
> > > > it would be the same when writing into IROUTER/ITARGETSR.
> > > >
> > > > This would remove the need to get the rank lock in gic_update_one_lr.
> > > >
> > > > Did I miss anything?
> > > I am not sure if we can do that: the virtual interrupt might not be
> > > EOI'd yet at that time. The guest EOI is used to deactivate the
> > > corresponding physical interrupt. Migrating the physical IRQ at that
> > > time, could have unintended consequences? I am not sure what the spec
> > > says about this, but even if it is correct on paper, I would prefer not
> > > to put it to the test: I bet that not many interrupt controllers have
> > > been heavily tested in this scenario. What do you think?
> > I don't think this is an issue. An interrupt could have the priority drop
> > happening on pCPU A and be deactivated on pCPU B if the vCPU A is been
> > migrated when the interrupt is inflight. So if it is fine here, why would not
> > it be when the guest is specifically requesting the routing?
> That is true, but this is not exactly the same.
My example was to show you that an IRQ can have its priority dropped in 
pCPU A and been deactivated to pCPU B. Another example is when only the 
IRQ is been migrated. The spec does not promise you to receive the next 
interrupt on the CPU you asked because it may take time to update the 
GIC state. So the priority drop and deactivation could be done on 
separate physical CPU here too.
> This is changing the
> physical irq affinity while both physical and virtual irqs are still
> active.
Physical IRQ state and virtual IRQ state are completely dissociated in 
the GIC. The only interaction possible is the virtual interface to send 
a deactivate request to the distributor when the virtual interrupt has 
been deactivated and correspond to a hardware interrupt.
> As I wrote, usually operating systems only change affinity after
> deactivating an irq, so I thought it would be wise in Xen to wait at
> least for the EOI.
I looked at the Linux code and did not see a such requirement when 
setting the affinity (see irq_set_affinity) of an IRQ.
> If we tried to inject the same virtual interrupt on a
> different vcpu, while the interrupt is still inflight, we could get in
> troubles. But we could avoid that by testing for GIC_IRQ_GUEST_MIGRATING
> in vgic_vcpu_inject_irq. Maybe I am worrying about nothing.
The only interrupt that can be routed to a guest in Xen are SPI which 
are shared between all CPUs. The active bit is handled by the 
distributor. It is not possible to receive the same SPI until it has 
been deactivated.
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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