Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/virtio: Avoid use of the dom0 backend in dom0

From: Stefano Stabellini
Date: Thu Jun 29 2023 - 18:44:56 EST

Next message: Stephen Rothwell: "linux-next: duplicate patches in the mediatek tree"
Previous message: Tony Luck: "Re: [PATCH V2 1/6] perf/x86/intel: Add Grand Ridge and Sierra Forest"
In reply to: Oleksandr Tyshchenko: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/virtio: Avoid use of the dom0 backend in dom0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> On 29.06.23 04:00, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> Hello Stefano
>
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2023, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
> >> On 21.06.23 16:12, Petr Pavlu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Petr
> >>
> >>
> >>> When attempting to run Xen on a QEMU/KVM virtual machine with virtio
> >>> devices (all x86_64), dom0 tries to establish a grant for itself which
> >>> eventually results in a hang during the boot.
> >>>
> >>> The backtrace looks as follows, the while loop in __send_control_msg()
> >>> makes no progress:
> >>>
> >>> #0 virtqueue_get_buf_ctx (_vq=_vq@entry=0xffff8880074a8400, len=len@entry=0xffffc90000413c94, ctx=ctx@entry=0x0 <fixed_percpu_data>) at ../drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:2326
> >>> #1 0xffffffff817086b7 in virtqueue_get_buf (_vq=_vq@entry=0xffff8880074a8400, len=len@entry=0xffffc90000413c94) at ../drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c:2333
> >>> #2 0xffffffff8175f6b2 in __send_control_msg (portdev=<optimized out>, port_id=0xffffffff, event=0x0, value=0x1) at ../drivers/char/virtio_console.c:562
> >>> #3 0xffffffff8175f6ee in __send_control_msg (portdev=<optimized out>, port_id=<optimized out>, event=<optimized out>, value=<optimized out>) at ../drivers/char/virtio_console.c:569
> >>> #4 0xffffffff817618b1 in virtcons_probe (vdev=0xffff88800585e800) at ../drivers/char/virtio_console.c:2098
> >>> #5 0xffffffff81707117 in virtio_dev_probe (_d=0xffff88800585e810) at ../drivers/virtio/virtio.c:305
> >>> #6 0xffffffff8198e348 in call_driver_probe (drv=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>, drv=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>, dev=0xffff88800585e810) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:579
> >>> #7 really_probe (dev=dev@entry=0xffff88800585e810, drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:658
> >>> #8 0xffffffff8198e58f in __driver_probe_device (drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>, dev=dev@entry=0xffff88800585e810) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:800
> >>> #9 0xffffffff8198e65a in driver_probe_device (drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>, dev=dev@entry=0xffff88800585e810) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:830
> >>> #10 0xffffffff8198e832 in __driver_attach (dev=0xffff88800585e810, data=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:1216
> >>> #11 0xffffffff8198bfb2 in bus_for_each_dev (bus=<optimized out>, start=start@entry=0x0 <fixed_percpu_data>, data=data@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>,
> >>> fn=fn@entry=0xffffffff8198e7b0 <__driver_attach>) at ../drivers/base/bus.c:368
> >>> #12 0xffffffff8198db65 in driver_attach (drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/base/dd.c:1233
> >>> #13 0xffffffff8198d207 in bus_add_driver (drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/base/bus.c:673
> >>> #14 0xffffffff8198f550 in driver_register (drv=drv@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/base/driver.c:246
> >>> #15 0xffffffff81706b47 in register_virtio_driver (driver=driver@entry=0xffffffff82be40c0 <virtio_console>) at ../drivers/virtio/virtio.c:357
> >>> #16 0xffffffff832cd34b in virtio_console_init () at ../drivers/char/virtio_console.c:2258
> >>> #17 0xffffffff8100105c in do_one_initcall (fn=0xffffffff832cd2e0 <virtio_console_init>) at ../init/main.c:1246
> >>> #18 0xffffffff83277293 in do_initcall_level (command_line=0xffff888003e2f900 "root", level=0x6) at ../init/main.c:1319
> >>> #19 do_initcalls () at ../init/main.c:1335
> >>> #20 do_basic_setup () at ../init/main.c:1354
> >>> #21 kernel_init_freeable () at ../init/main.c:1571
> >>> #22 0xffffffff81f64be1 in kernel_init (unused=<optimized out>) at ../init/main.c:1462
> >>> #23 0xffffffff81001f49 in ret_from_fork () at ../arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:308
> >>> #24 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()
> >>>
> >>> Fix the problem by preventing xen_grant_init_backend_domid() from
> >>> setting dom0 as a backend when running in dom0.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 035e3a4321f7 ("xen/virtio: Optimize the setup of "xen-grant-dma" devices")
> >>
> >>
> >> I am not 100% sure whether the Fixes tag points to precise commit. If I
> >> am not mistaken, the said commit just moves the code in the context
> >> without changing the logic of CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT, this was
> >> introduced before.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Petr Pavlu <petr.pavlu@xxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c | 4 +++-
> >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> >>> index 76f6f26265a3..29ed27ac450e 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/xen/grant-dma-ops.c
> >>> @@ -362,7 +362,9 @@ static int xen_grant_init_backend_domid(struct device *dev,
> >>> if (np) {
> >>> ret = xen_dt_grant_init_backend_domid(dev, np, backend_domid);
> >>> of_node_put(np);
> >>> - } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT) || xen_pv_domain()) {
> >>> + } else if ((IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT) ||
> >>> + xen_pv_domain()) &&
> >>> + !xen_initial_domain()) {
> >>
> >> The commit lgtm, just one note:
> >>
> >>
> >> I would even bail out early in xen_virtio_restricted_mem_acc() instead,
> >> as I assume the same issue could happen on Arm with DT (although there
> >> we don't guess the backend's domid, we read it from DT and quite
> >> unlikely we get Dom0 being in Dom0 with correct DT).
> >>
> >> Something like:
> >>
> >> @@ -416,6 +421,10 @@ bool xen_virtio_restricted_mem_acc(struct
> >> virtio_device *dev)
> >> {
> >> domid_t backend_domid;
> >>
> >> + /* Xen grant DMA ops are not used when running as initial domain */
> >> + if (xen_initial_domain())
> >> + return false;
> >> +
> >> if (!xen_grant_init_backend_domid(dev->dev.parent,
> >> &backend_domid)) {
> >> xen_grant_setup_dma_ops(dev->dev.parent, backend_domid);
> >> return true;
> >> (END)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> If so, that commit subject would need to be updated accordingly.
> >>
> >> Let's see what other reviewers will say.
> >
> > This doesn't work in all cases. Imagine using PCI Passthrough to assign
> > a "physical" virtio device to a domU. The domU will run into the same
> > error, right?
> >
> > The problem is that we need a way for the virtio backend to advertise
> > its ability of handling grants. Right now we only have a way to do with
> > that with device tree on ARM. On x86, we only have
> > CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT, and if we take
> > CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT at face value, it also enables grants for
> > "physical" virtio devices. Note that in this case we are fixing a
> > nested-virtualization bug, but there are actually physical
> > virtio-compatible devices out there. CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT will
> > break those too.
>
>
> If these "physical" virtio devices are also spawned by
> drivers/virtio/virtio.c:virtio_dev_probe(), then yes, otherwise I don't
> see how this could even be possible, but I might miss something here.

Yes, I would imagine virtio_dev_probe() would be called for them too

> xen_virtio_restricted_mem_acc() gets called indirectly from
> virtio_dev_probe()->virtio_features_ok()->
> virtio_check_mem_acc_cb(). So the Xen grant DMA ops are only installed
> for those.
>
>
> >
> > I think we need to add a second way? It could be anything that can help
> > us distinguish between a non-grants-capable virtio backend and a
> > grants-capable virtio backend, such as:
> > - a string on xenstore
> > - a xen param
> > - a special PCI configuration register value
> > - something in the ACPI tables
> > - the QEMU machine type
>
>
> Yes, I remember there was a discussion regarding that. The point is to
> choose a solution to be functional for both PV and HVM *and* to be able
> to support a hotplug. IIRC, the xenstore could be a possible candidate.

xenstore would be among the easiest to make work. The only downside is
the dependency on xenstore which otherwise virtio+grants doesn't have.

Vikram is working on virtio with grants support in QEMU as we speak.
Maybe we could find a way to add a flag in QEMU so that we can detect at
runtime if a given virtio device support grants or not.

> > Or at least should we change CONFIG_XEN_VIRTIO_FORCE_GRANT into a
> > command line parameter so that it can be disabled in cases like this
> > one?
>
> IIUC, this will help with HVM only.

For sure this is the least attractive solution, only marginally better
than the fix proposed in this patch

> > I realize that fixing this problem properly takes a lot longer than
> > adding a trivial if (dom0) return; check in the code. If you cannot find
> > a good way to solve the problem or you don't have time to do that now
> > and you need this bug fixed quickly, then I would be OK with the if
> > (dom0) return; check but please add a detailed TODO in-code comment to
> > explain that this is just a hack and we are still looking for a real
> > solution.
> >
> > The check itself I prefer the original position because I want to retain
> > the ability of using virtio frontends with grant on ARM in Dom0 (DomD
> > case).
>
> Makes sense, agree.

Next message: Stephen Rothwell: "linux-next: duplicate patches in the mediatek tree"
Previous message: Tony Luck: "Re: [PATCH V2 1/6] perf/x86/intel: Add Grand Ridge and Sierra Forest"
In reply to: Oleksandr Tyshchenko: "Re: [PATCH 2/2] xen/virtio: Avoid use of the dom0 backend in dom0"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]