Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove sequence
From: Alex Williamson
Date: Mon Mar 25 2019 - 22:16:49 EST
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 01:43:44 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 7:06 PM
> > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove sequence
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 23:34:28 +0000
> > Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019 6:19 PM
> > > > To: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > kwankhede@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] vfio/mdev: Improve the create/remove
> > > > sequence
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 18:20:35 -0500
> > > > Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > There are five problems with current code structure.
> > > > > 1. mdev device is placed on the mdev bus before it is created in
> > > > > the vendor driver. Once a device is placed on the mdev bus without
> > > > > creating its supporting underlying vendor device, an open() can
> > > > > get triggered by userspace on partially initialized device.
> > > > > Below ladder diagram highlight it.
> > > > >
> > > > > cpu-0 cpu-1
> > > > > ----- -----
> > > > > create_store()
> > > > > mdev_create_device()
> > > > > device_register()
> > > > > ...
> > > > > vfio_mdev_probe()
> > > > > ...creates char device
> > > > > vfio_mdev_open()
> > > > > parent->ops->open(mdev)
> > > > > vfio_ap_mdev_open()
> > > > > matrix_mdev = NULL
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > parent->ops->create()
> > > > > vfio_ap_mdev_create()
> > > > > mdev_set_drvdata(mdev, matrix_mdev);
> > > > > /* Valid pointer set above */
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Current creation sequence is,
> > > > > parent->ops_create()
> > > > > groups_register()
> > > > >
> > > > > Remove sequence is,
> > > > > parent->ops->remove()
> > > > > groups_unregister()
> > > > > However, remove sequence should be exact mirror of creation
> > sequence.
> > > > > Once this is achieved, all users of the mdev will be terminated
> > > > > first before removing underlying vendor device.
> > > > > (Follow standard linux driver model).
> > > > > At that point vendor's remove() ops shouldn't failed because
> > > > > device is taken off the bus that should terminate the users.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Additionally any new mdev driver that wants to work on mdev
> > > > > device during probe() routine registered using
> > > > > mdev_register_driver() needs to get stable mdev structure.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. In following sequence, child devices created while removing
> > > > > mdev parent device can be left out, or it may lead to race of
> > > > > removing half initialized child mdev devices.
> > > > >
> > > > > issue-1:
> > > > > --------
> > > > > cpu-0 cpu-1
> > > > > ----- -----
> > > > > mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > > device_for_each_child()
> > > > > mdev_device_remove_cb()
> > > > > mdev_device_remove()
> > > > > create_store()
> > > > > mdev_device_create() [...]
> > > > > device_register()
> > > > > parent_remove_sysfs_files()
> > > > > /* BUG: device added by cpu-0
> > > > > * whose parent is getting removed.
> > > > > */
> > > > >
> > > > > issue-2:
> > > > > --------
> > > > > cpu-0 cpu-1
> > > > > ----- -----
> > > > > create_store()
> > > > > mdev_device_create() [...]
> > > > > device_register()
> > > > >
> > > > > [...] mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > > device_for_each_child()
> > > > > mdev_device_remove_cb()
> > > > > mdev_device_remove()
> > > > >
> > > > > mdev_create_sysfs_files()
> > > > > /* BUG: create is adding
> > > > > * sysfs files for a device
> > > > > * which is undergoing removal.
> > > > > */
> > > > > parent_remove_sysfs_files()
> > > >
> > > > In both cases above, it looks like the device will hold a reference
> > > > to the parent, so while there is a race, the parent object isn't released.
> > > Yes, parent object is not released but parent fields are not stable.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Below crash is observed when user initiated remove is in
> > > > > progress and mdev_unregister_driver() completes parent
> > unregistration.
> > > > >
> > > > > cpu-0 cpu-1
> > > > > ----- -----
> > > > > remove_store()
> > > > > mdev_device_remove()
> > > > > active = false;
> > > > > mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > > remove type
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > mdev_remove_ops() crashes.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is similar race like create() racing with mdev_unregister_device().
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I catch this, the device should have a reference to the
> > > > parent, and we don't specifically clear parent->ops, so what's
> > > > getting removed that causes this oops? Is .remove pointing at bad text
> > regardless?
> > > >
> > > I guess the mdev_attr_groups being stale now.
> > >
> > > > > mtty mtty: MDEV: Registered
> > > > > iommu: Adding device 83b8f4f2-509f-382f-3c1e-e6bfe0fa1001 to group
> > > > > 57 vfio_mdev 83b8f4f2-509f-382f-3c1e-e6bfe0fa1001: MDEV: group_id
> > > > > = 57 mdev_device_remove sleep started mtty mtty: MDEV:
> > > > > Unregistering
> > > > > mtty_dev: Unloaded!
> > > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffc027d668
> > > > > PGD
> > > > > af9818067 P4D af9818067 PUD af981a067 PMD 8583c3067 PTE 0
> > > > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP PTI
> > > > > CPU: 15 PID: 3517 Comm: bash Kdump: loaded Not tainted
> > > > > 5.0.0-rc7-vdevbus+ #2 Hardware name: Supermicro
> > > > > SYS-6028U-TR4+/X10DRU-i+, BIOS 2.0b 08/09/2016
> > > > > RIP: 0010:mdev_device_remove_ops+0x1a/0x50 [mdev] Call Trace:
> > > > > mdev_device_remove+0xef/0x130 [mdev]
> > > > > remove_store+0x77/0xa0 [mdev]
> > > > > kernfs_fop_write+0x113/0x1a0
> > > > > __vfs_write+0x33/0x1b0
> > > > > ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x64/0x70
> > > > > ? rcu_sync_lockdep_assert+0x2a/0x50 ?
> > > > > __sb_start_write+0x121/0x1b0 ? vfs_write+0x17c/0x1b0
> > > > > vfs_write+0xad/0x1b0
> > > > > ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x1a/0x1c
> > > > > ksys_write+0x55/0xc0
> > > > > do_syscall_64+0x5a/0x210
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, mdev core is improved in following ways to overcome
> > > > > above issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Before placing mdev devices on the bus, perform vendor drivers
> > > > > creation which supports the mdev creation.
> > > > > This ensures that mdev specific all necessary fields are
> > > > > initialized before a given mdev can be accessed by bus driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. During remove flow, first remove the device from the bus. This
> > > > > ensures that any bus specific devices and data is cleared.
> > > > > Once device is taken of the mdev bus, perform remove() of mdev
> > > > > from the vendor driver.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Linux core device model provides way to register and auto
> > > > > unregister the device sysfs attribute groups at dev->groups.
> > > > > Make use of this groups to let core create the groups and simplify
> > > > > code to avoid explicit groups creation and removal.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Wait for any ongoing mdev create() and remove() to finish
> > > > > before unregistering parent device using srcu. This continues to
> > > > > allow multiple create and remove to progress in parallel. At the
> > > > > same time guard parent removal while parent is being access by
> > > > > create() and remove
> > > > callbacks.
> > > >
> > > > So there should be 4-5 separate patches here? Wishful thinking?
> > > >
> > > create, remove racing with unregister is handled using srcu.
> > > Change-3 cannot be done without fixing the sequence so it should be in
> > patch that fixes it.
> > > Change described changes 1-2-3 are just one change. It is just the patch
> > description to bring clarity.
> > > Change-4 can be possibly done as split to different patch.
> > >
> > > > > Fixes: 7b96953bc640 ("vfio: Mediated device Core driver")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c | 142 +++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > -----
> > > > ----
> > > > > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_private.h | 7 +-
> > > > > drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_sysfs.c | 6 +-
> > > > > 3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 71 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c index 944a058..8fe0ed1 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/vfio/mdev/mdev_core.c
> > > > > @@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ static void mdev_release_parent(struct kref *kref)
> > > > > ref);
> > > > > struct device *dev = parent->dev;
> > > > >
> > > > > + cleanup_srcu_struct(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > kfree(parent);
> > > > > put_device(dev);
> > > > > }
> > > > > @@ -103,56 +104,30 @@ static inline void mdev_put_parent(struct
> > > > mdev_parent *parent)
> > > > > kref_put(&parent->ref, mdev_release_parent); }
> > > > >
> > > > > -static int mdev_device_create_ops(struct kobject *kobj,
> > > > > - struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > > > > +static int mdev_device_must_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
> > > >
> > > > Naming is off here, mdev_device_remove_common()?
> > > >
> > > Yes, sounds better.
> > >
> > > > > {
> > > > > - struct mdev_parent *parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > + struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > > + struct mdev_type *type;
> > > > > int ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = parent->ops->create(kobj, mdev);
> > > > > - if (ret)
> > > > > - return ret;
> > > > > + type = to_mdev_type(mdev->type_kobj);
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = sysfs_create_groups(&mdev->dev.kobj,
> > > > > - parent->ops->mdev_attr_groups);
> > > > > + mdev_remove_sysfs_files(&mdev->dev, type);
> > > > > + device_del(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > + parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > + ret = parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > - parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > > + dev_err(&mdev->dev, "Remove failed: err=%d\n", ret);
> > > >
> > > > Let the caller decide whether to be verbose with the error, parent
> > > > removal might want to warn, sysfs remove might just return an error.
> > > >
> > > I didn't follow. Caller meaning mdev_device_remove_common() or vendor
> > driver?
> >
> > I mean the callback iterator on the parent remove can do a WARN_ON if this
> > returns an error while the device remove path can silently return -EBUSY, the
> > common function doesn't need to decide whether the parent ops remove
> > function deserves a dev_err.
> >
> Ok. I understood.
> But device remove returning silent -EBUSY looks an error that should
> get logged in, because this is something not expected. Its probably
> late for sysfs layer to return report an error by that time it prints
> device name, because put_device() is done. So if remove() returns an
> error, I think its legitimate failure to do WARN_ON or dev_err().
Calling put_device() if the parent remove op fails looks like a bug
introduced by this series, the current code allows that failure leaving
the device in a coherent state and returning errno to the sysfs store
function.
> > > > >
> > > > > + /* Balances with device_initialize() */
> > > > > + put_device(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/*
> > > > > - * mdev_device_remove_ops gets called from sysfs's 'remove'
> > > > > and when parent
> > > > > - * device is being unregistered from mdev device framework.
> > > > > - * - 'force_remove' is set to 'false' when called from
> > > > > sysfs's 'remove'
> > which
> > > > > - * indicates that if the mdev device is active, used by
> > > > > VMM or
> > userspace
> > > > > - * application, vendor driver could return error then
> > > > > don't remove
> > the
> > > > device.
> > > > > - * - 'force_remove' is set to 'true' when called from
> > > > mdev_unregister_device()
> > > > > - * which indicate that parent device is being removed from
> > > > > mdev
> > device
> > > > > - * framework so remove mdev device forcefully.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > -static int mdev_device_remove_ops(struct mdev_device *mdev,
> > > > > bool force_remove) -{
> > > > > - struct mdev_parent *parent = mdev->parent;
> > > > > - int ret;
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /*
> > > > > - * Vendor driver can return error if VMM or
> > > > > userspace application is
> > > > > - * using this mdev device.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > - ret = parent->ops->remove(mdev);
> > > > > - if (ret && !force_remove)
> > > > > - return ret;
> > > > > -
> > > > > - sysfs_remove_groups(&mdev->dev.kobj, parent->ops-
> > > > >mdev_attr_groups);
> > > > > - return 0;
> > > > > -}
> > > >
> > > > Seems like there's easily a separate patch in pushing the
> > > > create/remove ops into the calling function and separating for
> > > > the iterator callback, that would make this easier to review.
> > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > static int mdev_device_remove_cb(struct device *dev, void
> > > > > *data) { if (dev_is_mdev(dev))
> > > > > - mdev_device_remove(dev, true);
> > > > > -
> > > > > + mdev_device_must_remove(to_mdev_device(dev));
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -194,6 +169,7 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device
> > > > > *dev, const
> > > > struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > kref_init(&parent->ref);
> > > > > + init_srcu_struct(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > >
> > > > > parent->dev = dev;
> > > > > parent->ops = ops;
> > > > > @@ -214,6 +190,7 @@ int mdev_register_device(struct device
> > > > > *dev, const
> > > > struct mdev_parent_ops *ops)
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > dev_warn(dev, "Failed to create
> > > > > compatibility class link\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(parent->self, parent);
> > > > > list_add(&parent->next, &parent_list);
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -244,21 +221,36 @@ void mdev_unregister_device(struct
> > > > > device *dev)
> > > > >
> > > > > mutex_lock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > > parent = __find_parent_device(dev);
> > > > > -
> > > > > if (!parent) {
> > > > > mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > > return;
> > > > > }
> > > > > + list_del(&parent->next);
> > > > > + mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > > +
> > > > > dev_info(dev, "MDEV: Unregistering\n");
> > > > >
> > > > > - list_del(&parent->next);
> > > > > + /* Publish that this mdev parent is unregistering.
> > > > > So any new
> > > > > + * create/remove cannot start on this parent anymore
> > > > > by user.
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Comment style, we're not in netdev.
> > > Yep. Will fix it.
> > > >
> > > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(parent->self, NULL);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Wait for any active create() or remove() mdev ops
> > > > > on the parent
> > > > > + * to complete.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + synchronize_srcu(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* At this point it is confirmed that any pending
> > > > > user initiated
> > > > > + * create or remove callbacks accessing the parent
> > > > > are completed.
> > > > > + * It is safe to remove the parent now.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > class_compat_remove_link(mdev_bus_compat_class, dev,
> > > > > NULL);
> > > > >
> > > > > device_for_each_child(dev, NULL,
> > > > > mdev_device_remove_cb);
> > > > >
> > > > > parent_remove_sysfs_files(parent);
> > > > >
> > > > > - mutex_unlock(&parent_list_lock);
> > > > > mdev_put_parent(parent);
> > > > > }
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(mdev_unregister_device);
> > > > > @@ -278,14 +270,24 @@ static void mdev_device_release(struct
> > > > > device
> > > > > *dev) int mdev_device_create(struct kobject *kobj, struct
> > > > > device *dev, uuid_le uuid) {
> > > > > int ret;
> > > > > + struct mdev_parent *valid_parent;
> > > > > struct mdev_device *mdev, *tmp;
> > > > > struct mdev_parent *parent;
> > > > > struct mdev_type *type = to_mdev_type(kobj);
> > > > > + int srcu_idx;
> > > > >
> > > > > parent = mdev_get_parent(type->parent);
> > > > > if (!parent)
> > > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > >
> > > > > + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > + valid_parent = srcu_dereference(parent->self,
> > > > > &parent->unreg_srcu);
> > > > > + if (!valid_parent) {
> > > > > + /* parent is undergoing unregistration */
> > > > > + ret = -ENODEV;
> > > > > + goto mdev_fail;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > mutex_lock(&mdev_list_lock);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* Check for duplicate */
> > > > > @@ -310,68 +312,76 @@ int mdev_device_create(struct kobject
> > > > > *kobj, struct device *dev, uuid_le uuid)
> > > > >
> > > > > mdev->parent = parent;
> > > > >
> > > > > + device_initialize(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > mdev->dev.parent = dev;
> > > > > mdev->dev.bus = &mdev_bus_type;
> > > > > mdev->dev.release = mdev_device_release;
> > > > > + mdev->dev.groups =
> > > > > type->parent->ops->mdev_attr_groups; dev_set_name(&mdev->dev,
> > > > > "%pUl", uuid.b);
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = device_register(&mdev->dev);
> > > > > + ret = type->parent->ops->create(kobj, mdev);
> > > > > if (ret)
> > > > > - goto mdev_fail;
> > > > > + goto create_fail;
> > > > >
> > > > > - ret = mdev_device_create_ops(kobj, mdev);
> > > > > + ret = device_add(&mdev->dev);
> > > >
> > > > Separating device_initialize() and device_add() also looks like
> > > > a separate patch, then the srcu could be added at the end.
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Alex
> > >
> > > I saw little more core generated that way, but I think its fine.
> > > Basically, create/remove callback sequencing that does the
> > > device_inititailze/add etc in one patch and User side race
> > > handling using
> > srcu in another patch.
> > > Sounds good?
> >
> > Splitting device_register into device_intialize/device_add solves
> > the first issue alone, that can be one patch.
> Yes, once this is done, mdev_device_create_ops() is just a one line
> wrapper to groups creation. Hence I was considering to do in same
> patch, but its fine as a separate clean up patch. More split details
> below.
>
> > Creating the common remove function
> > seems like a logical next patch. The third patch could be using
> > the driver- core group attribute via those paths. Another patch
> > could then incorporate the srcu code to gate the create/remove
> > around parent removal. This basically matches your steps to
> > address these issues, it seems very split-able. Thanks,
> >
> So I reworked to split this one patch to following smaller refactor
> and fixes. 1. use of device_inititalize/add/remove helpers without
> fixing the sequence as prep patch 2. fix the create/remove sequence
> 3. factor out groups creation
> 4. remove helper function
> 5. srcu fix
Looks good, I think it will be much easier to review that way. Thanks,
Alex