On 06.02.21 19:46, Julien Grall wrote:

Hi Juergen,

On 06/02/2021 10:49, Juergen Gross wrote:

quoted

The first three patches are fixes for XSA-332. The avoid WARN splats
and a performance issue with interdomain events.

Thanks for helping to figure out the problem. Unfortunately, I still see 
reliably the WARN splat with the latest Linux master (1e0d27fce010) + 
your first 3 patches.

I am using Xen 4.11 (1c7d984645f9) and dom0 is forced to use the 2L 
events ABI.

After some debugging, I think I have an idea what's went wrong. The 
problem happens when the event is initially bound from vCPU0 to a 
different vCPU.

 From the comment in xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu(), we are masking the 
event to prevent it being delivered on an unexpected vCPU. However, I 
believe the following can happen:

vCPU0                | vCPU1
                 |
                 | Call xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu()
receive event X            |
                 | mask event X
                 | bind to vCPU1
<vCPU descheduled>        | unmask event X
                 |
                 | receive event X
                 |
                 | handle_edge_irq(X)
handle_edge_irq(X)        |  -> handle_irq_event()
                 |   -> set IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
  -> set IRQS_PENDING        |
                 |   -> evtchn_interrupt()
                 |   -> clear IRQD_IN_PROGRESS
                 |  -> IRQS_PENDING is set
                 |  -> handle_irq_event()
                 |   -> evtchn_interrupt()
                 |     -> WARN()
                 |

All the lateeoi handlers expect a ONESHOT semantic and 
evtchn_interrupt() is doesn't tolerate any deviation.

I think the problem was introduced by 7f874a0447a9 ("xen/events: fix 
lateeoi irq acknowledgment") because the interrupt was disabled 
previously. Therefore we wouldn't do another iteration in 
handle_edge_irq().

I think you picked the wrong commit for blaming, as this is just
the last patch of the three patches you were testing.

Aside the handlers, I think it may impact the defer EOI mitigation 
because in theory if a 3rd vCPU is joining the party (let say vCPU A 
migrate the event from vCPU B to vCPU C). So info->{eoi_cpu, irq_epoch, 
eoi_time} could possibly get mangled?

For a fix, we may want to consider to hold evtchn_rwlock with the write 
permission. Although, I am not 100% sure this is going to prevent 
everything.

It will make things worse, as it would violate the locking hierarchy
(xen_rebind_evtchn_to_cpu() is called with the IRQ-desc lock held).

On a first glance I think we'll need a 3rd masking state ("temporarily
masked") in the second patch in order to avoid a race with lateeoi.

In order to avoid the race you outlined above we need an "event is being
handled" indicator checked via test_and_set() semantics in
handle_irq_for_port() and reset only when calling clear_evtchn().

Does my write-up make sense to you?

Yes. What about my reply? ;-)


Juergen