qemu-s390x
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Cornelia Huck
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] virtio-ccw: fix virtio_set_ind_atomic
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:14:49 +0200

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 08:45:14 +0200
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 16.06.20 08:33, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 07:58:53 +0200
> > Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 16.06.20 06:50, 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>> 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;    
> >>
> >> to make things easier to understand. Adding a barrier in here also fixes 
> >> the issue.
> >> Reasoning follows below:
> >>  
> >>> -        ind_new = ind_old | to_be_set;    
> >>
> >> with an analysis from Andreas (cc)
> >>
> >>  #define atomic_cmpxchg__nocheck(ptr, old, new)    ({                    \ 
> >>   
> >>  
> >>      typeof_strip_qual(*ptr) _old = (old);                               \ 
> >>   
> >>  
> >>      (void)__atomic_compare_exchange_n(ptr, &_old, new, false,           \ 
> >>   
> >>  
> >>                                __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);      \ 
> >>   
> >>  
> >>      _old;                                                               \ 
> >>   
> >>  
> >>  })
> >>  
> >> ind_old is copied into _old in the macro. Instead of doing the copy from 
> >> the
> >> register the compiler reloads the value from memory. The result is that 
> >> _old
> >> and ind_old end up having different values. _old in r1 with the bits set
> >> already and ind_old in r10 with the bits cleared. _old gets updated by CS
> >> and matches ind_old afterwards - both with the bits being 0. So the !=
> >> compare is false and the loop is left without having set any bits.
> >>
> >>
> >> Paolo (to),
> >> I am asking myself if it would be safer to add a barrier or something like
> >> this in the macros in include/qemu/atomic.h.   
> 
> Having said this, I think that the refactoring from Halil (to re-use actual) 
> also makes sense independent of the fix. 

What about adding a barrier instead, as you suggested?

(Still wondering about other users of atomic_cmpxchg(), though.)




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]