Re: [PATCH v2 39/43] KVM: VMX: Don't do full kick when triggering posted interrupt "fails"

[Maxim Levitsky]

On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 00:09 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 27/10/21 18:04, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * The smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request() pairs with the smp_mb_*()
> > > > +		 * after setting vcpu->mode in vcpu_enter_guest(), thus the vCPU
> > > > +		 * is guaranteed to see the event request if triggering a posted
> > > > +		 * interrupt "fails" because vcpu->mode != IN_GUEST_MODE.
> > > 
> > > What this smp_wmb() pair with, is the smp_mb__after_atomic in
> > > kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_EVENT, vcpu).
> > 
> > I don't think that's correct.  There is no kvm_check_request() in the relevant path.
> > kvm_vcpu_exit_request() uses kvm_request_pending(), which is just a READ_ONCE()
> > without a barrier.
> 
> Ok, we are talking about two different set of barriers.  This is mine:
> 
> - smp_wmb() in kvm_make_request() pairs with the smp_mb__after_atomic() in
> kvm_check_request(); it ensures that everything before the request
> (in this case, pi_pending = true) is seen by inject_pending_event.
> 
> - pi_test_and_set_on() orders the write to ON after the write to PIR,
> pairing with vmx_sync_pir_to_irr and ensuring that the bit in the PIR is
> seen.
> 
> And this is yours:
> 
> - pi_test_and_set_on() _also_ orders the write to ON before the read of
> vcpu->mode, pairing with vcpu_enter_guest()
> 
> - kvm_make_request() however does _not_ order the write to
> vcpu->requests before the read of vcpu->mode, even though it's needed.
> Usually that's handled by kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(), but in this case
> vcpu->mode is read in kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt.

Yes indeed, kvm_make_request() writes the vcpu->requests after the memory barrier,
and then there is no barrier until reading of vcpu->mode in kvm_vcpu_trigger_posted_interrupt.

> 
> So vmx_deliver_nested_posted_interrupt() is missing a smp_mb__after_atomic().
> It's documentation only for x86, but still easily done in v3.
> 
> Paolo
> 

I used this patch as a justification to read Paolo's excellent LWN series of articles on memory barriers,
to refresh my knowledge of the memory barriers and understand the above analysis better.
https://lwn.net/Articles/844224/
 
I agree with the above, but this is something that is so easy to make a mistake
that I can't be 100% sure.
 
Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky