mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>
To: Shrikanth Hegde <sshegde@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Amit Machhiwal <amachhiw@linux.ibm.com>,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@linux.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	"Christophe Leroy (CS GROUP)" <chleroy@kernel.org>,
	"Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
	kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gautam Menghani <gautam@linux.ibm.com>,
	Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>,
	R Nageswara Sastry <rnsastry@linux.ibm.com>,
	Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>,
	linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH 2/3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add preempt_disable() around virtual-mode HPTE bit-lock users
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 19:08:26 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260930180232.ffed855b-03-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57f589e4-b7cc-43d1-8d02-732d10118833@linux.ibm.com>

Hi Shrikanth,

Thanks for taking a look at this patch.  Please find my responses inline.

On 2026/09/29 11:48 AM, Shrikanth Hegde wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/28/26 5:58 PM, Amit Machhiwal wrote:
> > kvmppc_hv_find_lock_hpte() requires virtual-mode callers to run with
> > preemption disabled, because it can return with HPTE_V_HVLOCK still held
> > until the caller later unlocks the HPTE.  Existing virtual-mode callers
> > in book3s_64_mmu_hv.c already follow that rule.
> > 

<..snip..>

> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > index aa51968e206a..52f72f30baf0 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > @@ -1212,9 +1212,11 @@ int kvmppc_pseries_do_hcall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   	case H_CLEAR_REF:
> >   	case H_PROTECT:
> >   	case H_BULK_REMOVE:
> > +		preempt_disable();
> >   		idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
> 
> Please add a comment above kvmppc_pseries_do_hpt_hcall, saying preemption
> is disabled and one cannot make any blocking call.

Sure, will do.

> 
> >   		ret = kvmppc_pseries_do_hpt_hcall(vcpu, req);
> >   		srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> > +		preempt_enable();
> >   		if (ret == H_TOO_HARD)
> >   			return RESUME_HOST;
> >   		break;
> > @@ -1834,8 +1836,10 @@ static int kvmppc_handle_exit_hv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >   		else
> >   			vsid = vcpu->arch.fault_gpa;
> > +		preempt_disable();
> >   		err = kvmppc_hpte_hv_fault(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_dar,
> >   				vsid, vcpu->arch.fault_dsisr, true);
> > +		preempt_enable();
> >   		if (err == 0) {
> >   			r = RESUME_GUEST;
> >   		} else if (err == -1 || err == -2) {
> > @@ -1881,8 +1885,10 @@ static int kvmppc_handle_exit_hv(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >   		else
> >   			vsid = vcpu->arch.fault_gpa;
> > +		preempt_disable();
> >   		err = kvmppc_hpte_hv_fault(vcpu, vcpu->arch.fault_dar,
> >   				vsid, vcpu->arch.fault_dsisr, false);
> > +		preempt_enable();
> >   		if (err == 0) {
> >   			r = RESUME_GUEST;
> >   		} else if (err == -1) {
> 
> Please check if below is possible case.
> 
> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260928113704.48912-4-amachhiw%40linux.ibm.com

Thank you for raising this point and bringing Sashiko AI's review comment to
attention.  After conducting a deep-dive audit of the preemption paths and the
virtual-mode locking context, it looks like Sashiko's finding is legitimate, and
extremely subtle.

The Deadlock Mechanism:
=======================

In this patch we added preempt_disable() / preempt_enable() pairs exclusively
around the guest vCPU HPT hcall paths (kvmppc_pseries_do_hpt_hcall) and page
fault paths (kvmppc_hpte_hv_fault) in virtual mode to satisfy the HPTE locking
preemption contract.

However, several host-side virtual-mode paths still acquire and hold the HPTE
bit-lock (HPTE_V_HVLOCK) with preemption enabled.  Specifically:

- While MMU notifier paths (unmapping, aging) and the dirty-log path are safe
  (since they are called with kvm->mmu_lock held, which disables preemption),
  the memslot flushing path (kvmppc_core_flush_memslot_hv() ->
  kvm_unmap_rmapp()) runs with only the slots_arch_lock mutex held, leaving
  preemption fully enabled.

If a host-side thread executing kvm_unmap_rmapp() successfully acquires the
HPTE_V_HVLOCK on CPU X and is preempted, a guest vCPU thread subsequently
scheduled on CPU X will enter the hcall or fault path, disable preemption (via
the current change), and spin indefinitely on try_lock_hpte().  Because
preemption is disabled on the spinning vCPU, it will never yield CPU X.  The
preempted host-side lock owner can never be rescheduled on CPU X to release the
lock.

This converts a potential latency/livelock issue into a permanent hard deadlock.

Proposed Solution:
==================

To make this fix completely watertight and eliminate the deadlock window, no
thread must ever be preempted while holding HPTE_V_HVLOCK in virtual mode.  This
means we must disable preemption during the lock-hold window on both the
vCPU-side and the host-side paths.

In the next version, I'll be making following changes:

Host-Side Preemption Disabling: Add preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
brackets around the HPTE_V_HVLOCK hold windows inside the four host-side
virtual-mode functions in arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c:

  - kvm_unmap_rmapp()
  - kvm_age_rmapp()
  - kvm_test_clear_dirty_npages()
  - resize_hpt_rehash_hpte()

For example, inside kvm_unmap_rmapp():

 diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
 index 2ccb3d138f46..59da958e09cb 100644
 --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
 +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c
 @@ -823,7 +823,9 @@ static void kvm_unmap_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
                  */
                 i = *rmapp & KVMPPC_RMAP_INDEX;
                 hptep = (__be64 *) (kvm->arch.hpt.virt + (i << 4));
 +               preempt_disable();
                 if (!try_lock_hpte(hptep, HPTE_V_HVLOCK)) {
 +                       preempt_enable();
                         /* unlock rmap before spinning on the HPTE lock */
                         unlock_rmap(rmapp);
                         while (be64_to_cpu(hptep[0]) & HPTE_V_HVLOCK)
 @@ -834,6 +836,7 @@ static void kvm_unmap_rmapp(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
                 kvmppc_unmap_hpte(kvm, i, memslot, rmapp, gfn);
                 unlock_rmap(rmapp);
                 __unlock_hpte(hptep, be64_to_cpu(hptep[0]));
 +               preempt_enable();
         }
  }

To ensure complete consistency and verify there are no other potential
preemption deadlock sites, I conducted a full audit of all 8 occurrences of
try_lock_hpte() inside arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_64_mmu_hv.c.

The proposed v2 fixes simply bring the host-side lock users into alignment with
the established, pre-existing design pattern used by every other virtual-mode
caller of try_lock_hpte() in this file:

- Established safe callers (4) — already wrapped in preempt_disable() /
  preempt_enable() blocks by design:
	- kvmppc_book3s_hv_page_fault()
	- read_hpte_for_cma()
	- kvmppc_hpte_hv_page_debug()

- Symmetrical alignment in v2 (4):
	- kvm_unmap_rmapp()
	- kvm_age_rmapp()
	- kvm_test_clear_dirty_npages()
	- resize_hpt_rehash_hpte()

This ensures 100% preemption-safety symmetry across all virtual-mode
lock-holding windows in KVM.

I hope this sounds good to you.

Thanks,
Amit

  reply	other threads:[~2026-09-30 13:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-09-28 12:28 [RESEND PATCH 0/3] KVM: PPC: Fixes for Book3S HV HPT locking and paired-single decoding Amit Machhiwal
2026-09-28 12:28 ` [RESEND PATCH 1/3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add SRCU protection for virtual-mode HPT hcalls Amit Machhiwal
2026-09-28 13:27   ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-09-28 12:28 ` [RESEND PATCH 2/3] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add preempt_disable() around virtual-mode HPTE bit-lock users Amit Machhiwal
2026-09-28 13:42   ` Ritesh Harjani
2026-09-29  6:18   ` Shrikanth Hegde
2026-09-30 13:38     ` Amit Machhiwal [this message]
2026-09-28 12:28 ` [RESEND PATCH 3/3] KVM: PPC: Fix get_d_signext() 12-bit displacement for paired-single D-form Amit Machhiwal

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=20260930180232.ffed855b-03-amachhiw@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=amachhiw@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=agraf@suse.de \
    --cc=avi@redhat.com \
    --cc=chleroy@kernel.org \
    --cc=gautam@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=harshpb@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=maddy@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
    --cc=rnsastry@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=sshegde@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®