Re: [PATCH v3 7/8] KVM: kvm-vfio: generic forwarding control

[Alex Williamson]

On Tue, 2014-11-25 at 19:20 +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 09:56 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 19:35 +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> >> This patch introduces a new KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE group.
> >>
> >> This is a new control channel which enables KVM to cooperate with
> >> viable VFIO devices.
> >>
> >> Functions are introduced to check the validity of a VFIO device
> >> file descriptor, increment/decrement the ref counter of the VFIO
> >> device.
> >>
> >> The patch introduces 2 attributes for this new device group:
> >> KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ, KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ.
> >> Their purpose is to turn a VFIO device IRQ into a forwarded IRQ and
> >> unset respectively unset the feature.
> >>
> >> The VFIO device stores a list of registered forwarded IRQs. The reference
> >> counter of the device is incremented each time a new IRQ is forwarded.
> >> Reference counter is decremented when the IRQ forwarding is unset.
> >>
> >> The forwarding programmming is architecture specific, implemented in
> >> kvm_arch_set_fwd_state function. Architecture specific implementation is
> >> enabled when __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD is set. When not set those
> >> functions are void.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v2 -> v3:
> >> - add API comments in kvm_host.h
> >> - improve the commit message
> >> - create a private kvm_vfio_fwd_irq struct
> >> - fwd_irq_action replaced by a bool and removal of VFIO_IRQ_CLEANUP. This
> >>   latter action will be handled in vgic.
> >> - add a vfio_device handle argument to kvm_arch_set_fwd_state. The goal is
> >>   to move platform specific stuff in architecture specific code.
> >> - kvm_arch_set_fwd_state renamed into kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward
> >> - increment the ref counter each time we do an IRQ forwarding and decrement
> >>   this latter each time one IRQ forward is unset. Simplifies the whole
> >>   ref counting.
> >> - simplification of list handling: create, search, removal
> >>
> >> v1 -> v2:
> >> - __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO renamed into __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> >> - original patch file separated into 2 parts: generic part moved in vfio.c
> >>   and ARM specific part(kvm_arch_set_fwd_state)
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/kvm_host.h |  28 ++++++
> >>  virt/kvm/vfio.c          | 249 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  2 files changed, 274 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> index ea53b04..0b9659d 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> >> @@ -1076,6 +1076,15 @@ struct kvm_device_ops {
> >>  		      unsigned long arg);
> >>  };
> >>  
> >> +/* internal self-contained structure describing a forwarded IRQ */
> >> +struct kvm_fwd_irq {
> >> +	struct kvm *kvm; /* VM to inject the GSI into */
> >> +	struct vfio_device *vdev; /* vfio device the IRQ belongs to */
> >> +	__u32 index; /* VFIO device IRQ index */
> >> +	__u32 subindex; /* VFIO device IRQ subindex */
> >> +	__u32 gsi; /* gsi, ie. virtual IRQ number */
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>  void kvm_device_get(struct kvm_device *dev);
> >>  void kvm_device_put(struct kvm_device *dev);
> >>  struct kvm_device *kvm_device_from_filp(struct file *filp);
> >> @@ -1085,6 +1094,25 @@ void kvm_unregister_device_ops(u32 type);
> >>  extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_mpic_ops;
> >>  extern struct kvm_device_ops kvm_xics_ops;
> >>  
> >> +#ifdef __KVM_HAVE_ARCH_KVM_VFIO_FORWARD
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward - changes the forwarded state of an IRQ
> >> + *
> >> + * @fwd_irq: handle to the forwarded irq struct
> >> + * @forward: true means forwarded, false means not forwarded
> >> + * returns 0 on success, < 0 on failure
> >> + */
> >> +int kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward(struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq,
> >> +			      bool forward);
> > 
> > We could add a struct device* to the args list or into struct
> > kvm_fwd_irq so that arch code doesn't need to touch the vdev.  arch code
> > has no business dealing with references to the vfio_device.
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Currently It can't put struct device* into the kvm_fwd_irq struct since
> I need to release the vfio_device with
> vfio_device_put_external_user(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> typically in kvm_vfio_clean_fwd_irq. So I need to store the pointers to
> the vfio_device somewhere.
> 
> I see 2 solutions: change the proto of
> vfio_device_put_external_user(struct vfio_device *vdev) and pass a
> struct device* (??)
> 
> or change the proto of kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward into
> 
> kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward(struct kvm *kvm, struct device *dev, int
> index, [int subindex], int gsi, bool forward) or using index/start/count
> but loosing the interest of having a self-contained internal struct.

The latter is sort of what I was assuming, I think the interface between
VFIO and KVM-VFIO is good, we just don't need to expose VFIO-isms out to
the arch KVM code.  KVM-VFIO should be the barrier layer.  In that
spirit, maybe it should be kvm_arch_set_forward() and the KVM-VFIO code
should do the processing of index/subindex sort of like how Feng did for
PCI devices.

> > 
> >> +
> >> +#else
> >> +static inline int kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward(struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd_irq,
> >> +					    bool forward)
> >> +{
> >> +	return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +#endif
> >> +
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
> >>  
> >>  static inline void kvm_vcpu_set_in_spin_loop(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool val)
> >> diff --git a/virt/kvm/vfio.c b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> >> index 6f0cc34..af178bb 100644
> >> --- a/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> >> +++ b/virt/kvm/vfio.c
> >> @@ -25,8 +25,16 @@ struct kvm_vfio_group {
> >>  	struct vfio_group *vfio_group;
> >>  };
> >>  
> >> +/* private linkable kvm_fwd_irq struct */
> >> +struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node {
> >> +	struct list_head link;
> >> +	struct kvm_fwd_irq fwd_irq;
> >> +};
> >> +
> >>  struct kvm_vfio {
> >>  	struct list_head group_list;
> >> +	/* list of registered VFIO forwarded IRQs */
> >> +	struct list_head fwd_node_list;
> >>  	struct mutex lock;
> >>  	bool noncoherent;
> >>  };
> >> @@ -247,12 +255,239 @@ static int kvm_vfio_set_group(struct kvm_device *dev, long attr, u64 arg)
> >>  	return -ENXIO;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device - Returns a handle to a vfio-device
> >> + *
> >> + * Checks it is a valid vfio device and increments its reference counter
> >> + * @fd: file descriptor of the vfio platform device
> >> + */
> >> +static struct vfio_device *kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(int fd)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct fd f = fdget(fd);
> >> +	struct vfio_device *vdev;
> >> +
> >> +	if (!f.file)
> >> +		return NULL;
> > 
> > ERR_PTR(-EINVAL)?
> > 
> > ie. propagate errors from the point where they're encountered so we
> > don't need to make up an errno later.
> yes thanks
> > 
> >> +	vdev = kvm_vfio_device_get_external_user(f.file);
> >> +	fdput(f);
> >> +	return vdev;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device: decrements the reference counter of the
> >> + * vfio platform * device
> >> + *
> >> + * @vdev: vfio_device handle to release
> >> + */
> >> +static void kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device(struct vfio_device *vdev)
> >> +{
> >> +	kvm_vfio_device_put_external_user(vdev);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_find_fwd_irq - checks whether a forwarded IRQ already is
> >> + * registered in the list of forwarded IRQs
> >> + *
> >> + * @kv: handle to the kvm-vfio device
> >> + * @fwd: handle to the forwarded irq struct
> >> + * In the positive returns the handle to its node in the kvm-vfio
> >> + * forwarded IRQ list, returns NULL otherwise.
> >> + * Must be called with kv->lock hold.
> >> + */
> >> +static struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *kvm_vfio_find_fwd_irq(
> >> +				struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> >> +				struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node;
> >> +
> >> +	list_for_each_entry(node, &kv->fwd_node_list, link) {
> >> +		if ((node->fwd_irq.index == fwd->index) &&
> >> +		    (node->fwd_irq.subindex == fwd->subindex) &&
> >> +		    (node->fwd_irq.vdev == fwd->vdev))
> >> +			return node;
> >> +	}
> >> +	return NULL;
> >> +}
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_register_fwd_irq - Allocates, populates and registers a
> >> + * forwarded IRQ
> >> + *
> >> + * @kv: handle to the kvm-vfio device
> >> + * @fwd: handle to the forwarded irq struct
> >> + * In case of success returns a handle to the new list node,
> >> + * NULL otherwise.
> >> + * Must be called with kv->lock hold.
> >> + */
> >> +static struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *kvm_vfio_register_fwd_irq(
> >> +				struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> >> +				struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node;
> >> +
> >> +	node = kmalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
> >> +	if (!node)
> >> +		return NULL;
> > 
> > ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM)?
> > 
> OK
> >> +
> >> +	node->fwd_irq = *fwd;
> >> +
> >> +	list_add(&node->link, &kv->fwd_node_list);
> >> +
> >> +	return node;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_unregister_fwd_irq - unregisters and frees a forwarded IRQ
> >> + *
> >> + * @node: handle to the node struct
> >> + * Must be called with kv->lock hold.
> >> + */
> >> +static void kvm_vfio_unregister_fwd_irq(struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node)
> >> +{
> >> +	list_del(&node->link);
> >> +	kfree(node);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_set_forward - turns a VFIO device IRQ into a forwarded IRQ
> >> + * @kv: handle to the kvm-vfio device
> >> + * @fd: file descriptor of the vfio device the IRQ belongs to
> >> + * @fwd: handle to the forwarded irq struct
> >> + *
> >> + * Registers an IRQ as forwarded and calls the architecture specific
> >> + * implementation of set_forward. In case of operation failure, the IRQ
> >> + * is unregistered. In case of success, the vfio device ref counter is
> >> + * incremented.
> >> + */
> >> +static int kvm_vfio_set_forward(struct kvm_vfio *kv, int fd,
> >> +				struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd)
> >> +{
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node =
> >> +			kvm_vfio_find_fwd_irq(kv, fwd);
> >> +
> >> +	if (node)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> > 
> > I assume you're saving -EBUSY for arch code for the case where the IRQ
> > is already active?
> yes. -EBUSY now corresponds to the case where the VFIO signaling is
> already setup.
> > 
> >> +	node = kvm_vfio_register_fwd_irq(kv, fwd);
> >> +	if (!node)
> >> +		return -ENOMEM;
> > 
> > if (IS_ERR(node))
> > 	return PTR_ERR(node);
> > 
> >> +	ret = kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward(fwd, true);
> >> +	if (ret < 0)  {
> >> +		kvm_vfio_unregister_fwd_irq(node);
> >> +		return ret;
> >> +	}
> >> +	/* increment the ref counter */
> >> +	kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(fd);
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be easier if the reference counting were coupled with the
> > register/unregister_fwd_irq?
> ok
>   I'd be tempted to pass your user_fwd_irq
> > to this function instead of a kvm_fwd_irq.
> Well in that case I would use kvm_arch_forwarded_irq for both set and
> unset. Then comes the problem of kvm_vfio_clean_fwd_irq which
> manipulates only internal structs.
> 
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_unset_forward - Sets a VFIO device IRQ as non forwarded
> >> + * @kv: handle to the kvm-vfio device
> >> + * @fwd: handle to the forwarded irq struct
> >> + *
> >> + * Calls the architecture specific implementation of set_forward and
> >> + * unregisters the IRQ from the forwarded IRQ list. Decrements the vfio
> >> + * device reference counter.
> >> + */
> >> +static int kvm_vfio_unset_forward(struct kvm_vfio *kv,
> >> +				  struct kvm_fwd_irq *fwd)
> >> +{
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node =
> >> +			kvm_vfio_find_fwd_irq(kv, fwd);
> >> +	if (!node)
> >> +		return -EINVAL;
> >> +	ret = kvm_arch_vfio_set_forward(fwd, false);
> > 
> > Whoa, if the unforward fails we continue to undo everything else?  How
> > does userspace cleanup from this?  We need a guaranteed shutdown path
> > for cleanup code, we can never trust userspace to do things in the
> > correct order.  Can we really preclude the user calling unforward with
> > an active IRQ?  Maybe _forward() and _unforward() need to be separate
> > functions so that 'un' can be made void to indicate it can't fail.
> If I accept an unforward while the VFIO signaling mechanism is set, the
> wrong handler will be setup on VFIO driver. So should I put in place a
> mechanism that changes the VFIO handler for that irq (causing VFIO
> driver free_irq/request_irq), using another external API function?

Yep, it seems like we need to re-evaluate whether forwarding can be
changed on a running IRQ.  Disallowing it doesn't appear to support KVM
initiated shutdown, only user initiated configuration.  So the
vfio-platform interrupt handler probably needs to be bi-modal.  Maybe
the forwarding state of the IRQ can use RCU to avoid locks.

> >> +	kvm_vfio_unregister_fwd_irq(node);
> >> +
> >> +	/* decrement the ref counter */
> >> +	kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device(fwd->vdev);
> > 
> > Again, seems like the unregister should do this.
> ok
> > 
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int kvm_vfio_control_irq_forward(struct kvm_device *kdev, long attr,
> >> +					int32_t __user *argp)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct kvm_arch_forwarded_irq user_fwd_irq;
> >> +	struct kvm_fwd_irq fwd;
> >> +	struct vfio_device *vdev;
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio *kv = kdev->private;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	if (copy_from_user(&user_fwd_irq, argp, sizeof(user_fwd_irq)))
> >> +		return -EFAULT;
> >> +
> >> +	vdev = kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device(user_fwd_irq.fd);
> >> +	if (IS_ERR(vdev)) {
> >> +		ret = PTR_ERR(vdev);
> >> +		goto out;
> >> +	}
> >> +
> >> +	fwd.vdev =  vdev;
> >> +	fwd.kvm =  kdev->kvm;
> >> +	fwd.index = user_fwd_irq.index;
> >> +	fwd.subindex = user_fwd_irq.subindex;
> >> +	fwd.gsi = user_fwd_irq.gsi;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (attr) {
> >> +	case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:
> >> +		mutex_lock(&kv->lock);
> >> +		ret = kvm_vfio_set_forward(kv, user_fwd_irq.fd, &fwd);
> >> +		mutex_unlock(&kv->lock);
> >> +		break;
> >> +	case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ:
> >> +		mutex_lock(&kv->lock);
> >> +		ret = kvm_vfio_unset_forward(kv, &fwd);
> >> +		mutex_unlock(&kv->lock);
> >> +		break;
> >> +	}
> >> +out:
> >> +	kvm_vfio_put_vfio_device(vdev);
> > 
> > It might add a little extra code, but logically the reference being tied
> > to the register/unregister feels a bit cleaner than this.
> Sorry I do not catch your comment here. Since i called
> kvm_vfio_get_vfio_device at the beg of the function, I need to release
> at the end of the function, besides the ref counter incr/decr at
> registration?

If we do reference counting on register/unregister, I'd think that the
get/put in this function would go away.  Having the reference here seems
redundant.

> > 
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int kvm_vfio_set_device(struct kvm_device *kdev, long attr, u64 arg)
> >> +{
> >> +	int32_t __user *argp = (int32_t __user *)(unsigned long)arg;
> >> +	int ret;
> >> +
> >> +	switch (attr) {
> >> +	case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_FORWARD_IRQ:
> >> +	case KVM_DEV_VFIO_DEVICE_UNFORWARD_IRQ:
> >> +		ret = kvm_vfio_control_irq_forward(kdev, attr, argp);
> >> +		break;
> >> +	default:
> >> +		ret = -ENXIO;
> >> +	}
> >> +	return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * kvm_vfio_clean_fwd_irq - Unset forwarding state of all
> >> + * registered forwarded IRQs and free their list nodes.
> >> + * @kv: kvm-vfio device
> >> + *
> >> + * Loop on all registered device/IRQ combos, reset the non forwarded state,
> >> + * void the lists and release the reference
> >> + */
> >> +static int kvm_vfio_clean_fwd_irq(struct kvm_vfio *kv)
> >> +{
> >> +	struct kvm_vfio_fwd_irq_node *node, *tmp;
> >> +
> >> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(node, tmp, &kv->fwd_node_list, link) {
> >> +		kvm_vfio_unset_forward(kv, &node->fwd_irq);
> >> +	}
> >> +	return 0;
> > 
> > This shouldn't be able to fail, make it void.
> see above questioning? But you're right, I am too much virtualization
> oriented. Currently my cleanup is even done in the virtual interrupt
> controller when the VM dies because nobody unsets the VFIO signaling.

Yep, being a kernel interface it needs to be hardened against careless
and malicious users.  The kernel should return to the correct state if
we kill -9 QEMU at any point.  Thanks,

Alex

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/