On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 06:05:32PM -0700, Vishal Annapurve wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 11:49 PM Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 10:04:45AM -0700, Ackerley Tng wrote:
> > > Ackerley Tng <ackerleytng@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 05:20:21PM +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > >>> This patch would cause host deadlock when booting up a TDX VM even if huge page
> > > >>> is turned off. I currently reverted this patch. No further debug yet.
> > > >> This is because kvm_gmem_populate() takes filemap invalidation lock, and for
> > > >> TDX, kvm_gmem_populate() further invokes kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), causing deadlock.
> > > >>
> > > >> kvm_gmem_populate
> > > >> filemap_invalidate_lock
> > > >> post_populate
> > > >> tdx_gmem_post_populate
> > > >> kvm_tdp_map_page
> > > >> kvm_mmu_do_page_fault
> > > >> kvm_tdp_page_fault
> > > >> kvm_tdp_mmu_page_fault
> > > >> kvm_mmu_faultin_pfn
> > > >> __kvm_mmu_faultin_pfn
> > > >> kvm_mmu_faultin_pfn_private
> > > >> kvm_gmem_get_pfn
> > > >> filemap_invalidate_lock_shared
> > > >>
> > > >> Though, kvm_gmem_populate() is able to take shared filemap invalidation lock,
> > > >> (then no deadlock), lockdep would still warn "Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > > >> ...DEADLOCK" due to the recursive shared lock, since commit e918188611f0
> > > >> ("locking: More accurate annotations for read_lock()").
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for investigating. This should be fixed in the next revision.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This was not fixed in v2 [1], I misunderstood this locking issue.
> > >
> > > IIUC kvm_gmem_populate() gets a pfn via __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), then calls
> > > part of the KVM fault handler to map the pfn into secure EPTs, then
> > > calls the TDX module for the copy+encrypt.
> > >
> > > Regarding this lock, seems like KVM'S MMU lock is already held while TDX
> > > does the copy+encrypt. Why must the filemap_invalidate_lock() also be
> > > held throughout the process?
> > If kvm_gmem_populate() does not hold filemap invalidate lock around all
> > requested pages, what value should it return after kvm_gmem_punch_hole() zaps a
> > mapping it just successfully installed?
> >
> > TDX currently only holds the read kvm->mmu_lock in tdx_gmem_post_populate() when
> > CONFIG_KVM_PROVE_MMU is enabled, due to both slots_lock and the filemap
> > invalidate lock being taken in kvm_gmem_populate().
>
> Does TDX need kvm_gmem_populate path just to ensure SEPT ranges are
> not zapped during tdh_mem_page_add and tdh_mr_extend operations? Would
> holding KVM MMU read lock during these operations sufficient to avoid
> having to do this back and forth between TDX and gmem layers?
I think the problem here is because in kvm_gmem_populate(),
"__kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), post_populate(), and kvm_gmem_mark_prepared()"
must be wrapped in filemap invalidate lock (shared or exclusive), right?
Then, in TDX's post_populate() callback, the filemap invalidate lock is held
again by kvm_tdp_map_page() --> ... ->kvm_gmem_get_pfn().
As in kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), the filemap invalidate lock also wraps both
__kvm_gmem_get_pfn() and kvm_gmem_prepare_folio():
filemap_invalidate_lock_shared();
__kvm_gmem_get_pfn();
kvm_gmem_prepare_folio();
filemap_invalidate_unlock_shared(),
I don't find a good reason for kvm_gmem_populate() to release filemap lock
before invoking post_populate().
Could we change the lock to filemap_invalidate_lock_shared() in
kvm_gmem_populate() and relax the warning in commit e918188611f0 ("locking: More
accurate annotations for read_lock()") ?
> > Looks sev_gmem_post_populate() does not take kvm->mmu_lock either.
> >
> > I think kvm_gmem_populate() needs to hold the filemap invalidate lock at least
> > around each __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(), post_populate() and kvm_gmem_mark_prepared().
> >
> > > If we don't have to hold the filemap_invalidate_lock() throughout,
> > >
> > > 1. Would it be possible to call kvm_gmem_get_pfn() to get the pfn
> > > instead of calling __kvm_gmem_get_pfn() and managing the lock in a
> > > loop?
> > >
> > > 2. Would it be possible to trigger the kvm fault path from
> > > kvm_gmem_populate() so that we don't rebuild the get_pfn+mapping
> > > logic and reuse the entire faulting code? That way the
> > > filemap_invalidate_lock() will only be held while getting a pfn.
> > The kvm fault path is invoked in TDX's post_populate() callback.
> > I don't find a good way to move it to kvm_gmem_populate().
> >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1747264138.git.ackerleytng@xxxxxxxxxx/T/
> > >
> > > >>> > @@ -819,12 +827,16 @@ int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > > >>> > pgoff_t index = kvm_gmem_get_index(slot, gfn);
> > > >>> > struct file *file = kvm_gmem_get_file(slot);
> > > >>> > int max_order_local;
> > > >>> > + struct address_space *mapping;
> > > >>> > struct folio *folio;
> > > >>> > int r = 0;
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > if (!file)
> > > >>> > return -EFAULT;
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > + mapping = file->f_inode->i_mapping;
> > > >>> > + filemap_invalidate_lock_shared(mapping);
> > > >>> > +
> > > >>> > /*
> > > >>> > * The caller might pass a NULL 'max_order', but internally this
> > > >>> > * function needs to be aware of any order limitations set by
> > > >>> > @@ -838,6 +850,7 @@ int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > > >>> > folio = __kvm_gmem_get_pfn(file, slot, index, pfn, &max_order_local);
> > > >>> > if (IS_ERR(folio)) {
> > > >>> > r = PTR_ERR(folio);
> > > >>> > + filemap_invalidate_unlock_shared(mapping);
> > > >>> > goto out;
> > > >>> > }
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > @@ -845,6 +858,7 @@ int kvm_gmem_get_pfn(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot,
> > > >>> > r = kvm_gmem_prepare_folio(kvm, file, slot, gfn, folio, max_order_local);
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > folio_unlock(folio);
> > > >>> > + filemap_invalidate_unlock_shared(mapping);
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > if (!r)
> > > >>> > *page = folio_file_page(folio, index);
> > > >>> > --
> > > >>> > 2.25.1
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >
> > >
>
