Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio-ccw: fix virtio_set_ind_atomic

[Halil Pasic]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 14:34:04 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:50:34AM +0200, Halil Pasic wrote:
> > The atomic_cmpxchg() loop is broken because we occasionally end up with
> > old and _old having different values (a legit compiler can generate code
> > that accessed *ind_addr again to pick up a value for _old instead of
> > using the value of old that was already fetched according to the
> > rules of the abstract machine). This means the underlying CS instruction
> > may use a different old (_old) than the one we intended to use if
> > atomic_cmpxchg() performed the xchg part.
> 
> And was this ever observed in the field? Or is this a theoretical issue?
> commit log should probably say ...
> 

It was observed in the field (Christian already answered). I think the
message already implies this, because the only conjunctive is about the
compiler behavior.

> > 
> > Let us use volatile to force the rules of the abstract machine for
> > accesses to *ind_addr. Let us also rewrite the loop so, we that the
> 
> we that -> we know that?

s/we//

It would be nice to fix this before the patch gets merged.

> 
> > new old is used to compute the new desired value if the xchg part
> > is not performed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> > Reported-by: Andre Wild <Andre.Wild1@ibm.com>
> > Fixes: 7e7494627f ("s390x/virtio-ccw: Adapter interrupt support.")
> > ---
> >  hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> > index c1f4bb1d33..3c988a000b 100644
> > --- a/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> > +++ b/hw/s390x/virtio-ccw.c
> > @@ -786,9 +786,10 @@ static inline VirtioCcwDevice 
> > *to_virtio_ccw_dev_fast(DeviceState *d)
> >  static uint8_t virtio_set_ind_atomic(SubchDev *sch, uint64_t ind_loc,
> >                                       uint8_t to_be_set)
> >  {
> > -    uint8_t ind_old, ind_new;
> > +    uint8_t expected, actual;
> >      hwaddr len = 1;
> > -    uint8_t *ind_addr;
> > +    /* avoid  multiple fetches */
> > +    uint8_t volatile *ind_addr;
> >  
> >      ind_addr = cpu_physical_memory_map(ind_loc, &len, true);
> >      if (!ind_addr) {
> > @@ -796,14 +797,15 @@ static uint8_t virtio_set_ind_atomic(SubchDev *sch, 
> > uint64_t ind_loc,
> >                       __func__, sch->cssid, sch->ssid, sch->schid);
> >          return -1;
> >      }
> > +    actual = *ind_addr;
> >      do {
> > -        ind_old = *ind_addr;
> > -        ind_new = ind_old | to_be_set;
> > -    } while (atomic_cmpxchg(ind_addr, ind_old, ind_new) != ind_old);
> > -    trace_virtio_ccw_set_ind(ind_loc, ind_old, ind_new);
> > -    cpu_physical_memory_unmap(ind_addr, len, 1, len);
> > +        expected = actual;
> > +        actual = atomic_cmpxchg(ind_addr, expected, expected | to_be_set);
> > +    } while (actual != expected);
> > +    trace_virtio_ccw_set_ind(ind_loc, actual, actual | to_be_set);
> > +    cpu_physical_memory_unmap((void *)ind_addr, len, 1, len);
> >  
> > -    return ind_old;
> > +    return actual;
> >  }
> 
> I wonder whether cpuXX APIs should accept volatile pointers, too:
> casting away volatile is always suspicious.
> But that is a separate issue ...
> 

Nod.

Thanks for having a look!

> >  static void virtio_ccw_notify(DeviceState *d, uint16_t vector)
> > -- 
> > 2.17.1
>