From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Jean-Christophe Guillain" <jean-christophe@guillain.net>,
"Paweł S" <spawel523@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: Reject attempts to lock all vCPUs if vCPU creation is in-progress
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 11:12:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260914181223.289061-2-seanjc@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914181223.289061-1-seanjc@google.com>
Reject locking of all vCPUs if vCPU creation is in-progress, i.e. if the
number of "created" vCPUs doesn't match the number of "onlined" vCPUs.
It's simply not possible to guarantee that KVM has truly locked all vCPUs
if one or more vCPUs are actively being created. Holding kvm->lock does
prevent in-flight vCPUs from being fully onlined, but it's infeasible for
common KVM to know whether or not that provides sufficient protection.
In practice, this is likely a minor bug fix for the ARM and RISC-V usage of
kvm_trylock_all_vcpus(), and a glorified nop for everything else. E.g.
ARM's kvm_timer_vcpu_init() can race kvm_vm_ioctl_set_counter_offset() with
respect to observing KVM_ARCH_FLAG_VM_COUNTER_OFFSET.
Opportunistically drop all existing manual checks on vCPU creation being
in-progress as all such checks immediately precede or follow locking of all
vCPUs.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
---
arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c | 10 ----------
arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c | 5 -----
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 6 ++++++
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
index 5705723f1f41..068f8a236a35 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/svm/sev.c
@@ -1125,9 +1125,6 @@ static int sev_launch_update_vmsa(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)
if (!sev_es_guest(kvm))
return -ENOTTY;
- if (kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(kvm))
- return -EBUSY;
-
ret = kvm_lock_all_vcpus(kvm);
if (ret)
return ret;
@@ -2115,10 +2112,6 @@ static int sev_check_source_vcpus(struct kvm *dst, struct kvm *src)
struct kvm_vcpu *src_vcpu;
unsigned long i;
- if (kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(src) ||
- kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(dst))
- return -EBUSY;
-
if (!sev_es_guest(src))
return 0;
@@ -2510,9 +2503,6 @@ static int snp_launch_update_vmsa(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_sev_cmd *argp)
unsigned long i;
int ret;
- if (kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(kvm))
- return -EBUSY;
-
ret = kvm_lock_all_vcpus(kvm);
if (ret)
return ret;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
index b272c20586a7..58c255256e4c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/tdx.c
@@ -2728,11 +2728,6 @@ static tdx_vm_state_guard_t tdx_acquire_vm_state_locks(struct kvm *kvm)
mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
- if (kvm->created_vcpus != atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus)) {
- r = -EBUSY;
- goto out_err;
- }
-
r = kvm_lock_all_vcpus(kvm);
if (r)
goto out_err;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 65eb26a0520d..78cc090435be 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1363,6 +1363,9 @@ int kvm_trylock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
+ if (kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(kvm))
+ return -EBUSY;
+
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm)
if (!mutex_trylock_nest_lock(&vcpu->mutex, &kvm->lock))
goto out_unlock;
@@ -1386,6 +1389,9 @@ int kvm_lock_all_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->lock);
+ if (kvm_is_vcpu_creation_in_progress(kvm))
+ return -EBUSY;
+
kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
r = mutex_lock_killable_nest_lock(&vcpu->mutex, &kvm->lock);
if (r)
--
2.55.0.1032.g73a4cd73de-goog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-14 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 18:12 [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Serialize vCPU creation and revert vcpu_ids tracking Sean Christopherson
2026-09-14 18:12 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2026-09-14 18:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] KVM: Protect all of kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu() with kvm->lock Sean Christopherson
2026-09-14 18:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] KVM: Move check for existing vCPU ID to the top of vCPU creation Sean Christopherson
2026-09-14 18:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] Revert "KVM: Check for duplicate vcpu_id as early as possible" Sean Christopherson
2026-09-14 18:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] KVM: WARN if vCPU creation is in-progress when locking all vCPUs Sean Christopherson
2026-09-14 18:39 ` [PATCH 0/5] KVM: Serialize vCPU creation and revert vcpu_ids tracking Christian Borntraeger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260914181223.289061-2-seanjc@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=jean-christophe@guillain.net \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=spawel523@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®