Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

arch: x86: configs: ceclare CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_ZHAOXIN as M #330

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 22, 2024

Conversation

MingcongBai
Copy link
Contributor

This driver throws a firmware error when the CPU is not a Zhaoxin:

zhaoxin_rng: The CPU isn't support XSTORE.

This is consistent with the VIA hardware RNG driver, which probably has the same issue. We should really report this upstream for a bug fix (and definitely contact Zhaoxin about this at some point).

This driver throws a firmware error when the CPU is not a Zhaoxin:

  zhaoxin_rng: The CPU isn't support XSTORE.

This is consistent with the VIA hardware RNG driver, which probably has the
same issue. We should really report this upstream for a bug fix (and
definitely contact Zhaoxin about this at some point).

Signed-off-by: Mingcong Bai <baimingcong@uniontech.com>
@deepin-ci-robot
Copy link

deepin pr auto review

关键摘要:

  • 检查新增的 CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_ZHAOXIN 配置项是否已经在其他相关代码中得到了正确的支持。
  • 确认 CONFIG_HW_RANDOM_ZHAOXIN 的启用是否会影响系统的稳定性或性能。

是否建议立即修改:

  • 是,如果新增配置项的支持代码未完成,应立即完成。
  • 是,如果启用该配置项会导致系统不稳定或性能问题,应考虑是否需要限制默认启用或提供相应的警告信息。

@deepin-ci-robot
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign hudeng-go for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@Avenger-285714 Avenger-285714 merged commit e1daf03 into linux-6.6.y Jul 22, 2024
8 of 9 checks passed
@opsiff opsiff deleted the bai/linux-6.6.y/zhaoxin-hwrng-as-module branch August 5, 2024 11:26
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit to Avenger-285714/DeepinKernel that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2024
commit 44d17459626052a2390457e550a12cb973506b2f upstream.

Use a dedicated mutex to guard kvm_usage_count to fix a potential deadlock
on x86 due to a chain of locks and SRCU synchronizations.  Translating the
below lockdep splat, CPU1 deepin-community#6 will wait on CPU0 #1, CPU0 deepin-community#8 will wait on
CPU2 deepin-community#3, and CPU2 deepin-community#7 will wait on CPU1 deepin-community#4 (if there's a writer, due to the
fairness of r/w semaphores).

    CPU0                     CPU1                     CPU2
1   lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
2                                                     lock(&vcpu->mutex);
3                                                     lock(&kvm->srcu);
4                            lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
5                            lock(kvm_lock);
6                            lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
7                                                     lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
8   sync(&kvm->srcu);

Note, there are likely more potential deadlocks in KVM x86, e.g. the same
pattern of taking cpu_hotplug_lock outside of kvm_lock likely exists with
__kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier():

  cpuhp_cpufreq_online()
  |
  -> cpufreq_online()
     |
     -> cpufreq_gov_performance_limits()
        |
        -> __cpufreq_driver_target()
           |
           -> __target_index()
              |
              -> cpufreq_freq_transition_begin()
                 |
                 -> cpufreq_notify_transition()
                    |
                    -> ... __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier()

But, actually triggering such deadlocks is beyond rare due to the
combination of dependencies and timings involved.  E.g. the cpufreq
notifier is only used on older CPUs without a constant TSC, mucking with
the NX hugepage mitigation while VMs are running is very uncommon, and
doing so while also onlining/offlining a CPU (necessary to generate
contention on cpu_hotplug_lock) would be even more unusual.

The most robust solution to the general cpu_hotplug_lock issue is likely
to switch vm_list to be an RCU-protected list, e.g. so that x86's cpufreq
notifier doesn't to take kvm_lock.  For now, settle for fixing the most
blatant deadlock, as switching to an RCU-protected list is a much more
involved change, but add a comment in locking.rst to call out that care
needs to be taken when walking holding kvm_lock and walking vm_list.

  ======================================================
  WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
  6.10.0-smp--c257535a0c9d-pip deepin-community#330 Tainted: G S         O
  ------------------------------------------------------
  tee/35048 is trying to acquire lock:
  ff6a80eced71e0a8 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm]

  but task is already holding lock:
  ffffffffc07abb08 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x14a/0x1e0 [kvm]

  which lock already depends on the new lock.

   the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

  -> deepin-community#3 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
         __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40
         mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30
         kvm_dev_ioctl+0x4fb/0xe50 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #2 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
         cpus_read_lock+0x2e/0xb0
         static_key_slow_inc+0x16/0x30
         kvm_lapic_set_base+0x6a/0x1c0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_apic_base+0x8f/0xe0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_msr_common+0x9ae/0xf80 [kvm]
         vmx_set_msr+0xa54/0xbe0 [kvm_intel]
         __kvm_set_msr+0xb6/0x1a0 [kvm]
         kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl+0xeca/0x10c0 [kvm]
         kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x485/0x5b0 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #1 (&kvm->srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}:
         __synchronize_srcu+0x44/0x1a0
         synchronize_srcu_expedited+0x21/0x30
         kvm_swap_active_memslots+0x110/0x1c0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_memslot+0x360/0x620 [kvm]
         __kvm_set_memory_region+0x27b/0x300 [kvm]
         kvm_vm_ioctl_set_memory_region+0x43/0x60 [kvm]
         kvm_vm_ioctl+0x295/0x650 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #0 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
         __lock_acquire+0x15ef/0x2e30
         lock_acquire+0xe0/0x260
         __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40
         mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30
         set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm]
         param_attr_store+0x93/0x100
         module_attr_store+0x22/0x40
         sysfs_kf_write+0x81/0xb0
         kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x133/0x1d0
         vfs_write+0x28d/0x380
         ksys_write+0x70/0xe0
         __x64_sys_write+0x1f/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x281b/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

Cc: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Fixes: 0bf5049 ("KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Tested-by: Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-ID: <20240830043600.127750-2-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Avenger-285714 pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 6, 2024
commit 44d17459626052a2390457e550a12cb973506b2f upstream.

Use a dedicated mutex to guard kvm_usage_count to fix a potential deadlock
on x86 due to a chain of locks and SRCU synchronizations.  Translating the
below lockdep splat, CPU1 #6 will wait on CPU0 #1, CPU0 #8 will wait on
CPU2 #3, and CPU2 #7 will wait on CPU1 #4 (if there's a writer, due to the
fairness of r/w semaphores).

    CPU0                     CPU1                     CPU2
1   lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
2                                                     lock(&vcpu->mutex);
3                                                     lock(&kvm->srcu);
4                            lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
5                            lock(kvm_lock);
6                            lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
7                                                     lock(cpu_hotplug_lock);
8   sync(&kvm->srcu);

Note, there are likely more potential deadlocks in KVM x86, e.g. the same
pattern of taking cpu_hotplug_lock outside of kvm_lock likely exists with
__kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier():

  cpuhp_cpufreq_online()
  |
  -> cpufreq_online()
     |
     -> cpufreq_gov_performance_limits()
        |
        -> __cpufreq_driver_target()
           |
           -> __target_index()
              |
              -> cpufreq_freq_transition_begin()
                 |
                 -> cpufreq_notify_transition()
                    |
                    -> ... __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier()

But, actually triggering such deadlocks is beyond rare due to the
combination of dependencies and timings involved.  E.g. the cpufreq
notifier is only used on older CPUs without a constant TSC, mucking with
the NX hugepage mitigation while VMs are running is very uncommon, and
doing so while also onlining/offlining a CPU (necessary to generate
contention on cpu_hotplug_lock) would be even more unusual.

The most robust solution to the general cpu_hotplug_lock issue is likely
to switch vm_list to be an RCU-protected list, e.g. so that x86's cpufreq
notifier doesn't to take kvm_lock.  For now, settle for fixing the most
blatant deadlock, as switching to an RCU-protected list is a much more
involved change, but add a comment in locking.rst to call out that care
needs to be taken when walking holding kvm_lock and walking vm_list.

  ======================================================
  WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
  6.10.0-smp--c257535a0c9d-pip #330 Tainted: G S         O
  ------------------------------------------------------
  tee/35048 is trying to acquire lock:
  ff6a80eced71e0a8 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm]

  but task is already holding lock:
  ffffffffc07abb08 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: set_nx_huge_pages+0x14a/0x1e0 [kvm]

  which lock already depends on the new lock.

   the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:

  -> #3 (kvm_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
         __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40
         mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30
         kvm_dev_ioctl+0x4fb/0xe50 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #2 (cpu_hotplug_lock){++++}-{0:0}:
         cpus_read_lock+0x2e/0xb0
         static_key_slow_inc+0x16/0x30
         kvm_lapic_set_base+0x6a/0x1c0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_apic_base+0x8f/0xe0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_msr_common+0x9ae/0xf80 [kvm]
         vmx_set_msr+0xa54/0xbe0 [kvm_intel]
         __kvm_set_msr+0xb6/0x1a0 [kvm]
         kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl+0xeca/0x10c0 [kvm]
         kvm_vcpu_ioctl+0x485/0x5b0 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #1 (&kvm->srcu){.+.+}-{0:0}:
         __synchronize_srcu+0x44/0x1a0
         synchronize_srcu_expedited+0x21/0x30
         kvm_swap_active_memslots+0x110/0x1c0 [kvm]
         kvm_set_memslot+0x360/0x620 [kvm]
         __kvm_set_memory_region+0x27b/0x300 [kvm]
         kvm_vm_ioctl_set_memory_region+0x43/0x60 [kvm]
         kvm_vm_ioctl+0x295/0x650 [kvm]
         __se_sys_ioctl+0x7b/0xd0
         __x64_sys_ioctl+0x21/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x15d0/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

  -> #0 (&kvm->slots_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}:
         __lock_acquire+0x15ef/0x2e30
         lock_acquire+0xe0/0x260
         __mutex_lock+0x6a/0xb40
         mutex_lock_nested+0x1f/0x30
         set_nx_huge_pages+0x179/0x1e0 [kvm]
         param_attr_store+0x93/0x100
         module_attr_store+0x22/0x40
         sysfs_kf_write+0x81/0xb0
         kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x133/0x1d0
         vfs_write+0x28d/0x380
         ksys_write+0x70/0xe0
         __x64_sys_write+0x1f/0x30
         x64_sys_call+0x281b/0x2e60
         do_syscall_64+0x83/0x160
         entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e

Cc: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Fixes: 0bf5049 ("KVM: Drop kvm_count_lock and instead protect kvm_usage_count with kvm_lock")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reviewed-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Acked-by: Kai Huang <kai.huang@intel.com>
Tested-by: Farrah Chen <farrah.chen@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Message-ID: <20240830043600.127750-2-seanjc@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants