On 03/15/2014 12:40 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:13:29AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 03/13/2014 04:51 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 02:05:38AM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>>>> Subsystems that want to register CPU hotplug callbacks, as well as perform
>>>> initialization for the CPUs that are already online, often do it as shown
>>>> below:
>>>>
[...]
>>> Just so we're clear, the existing code was simply racy as not prone to
>>> deadlocks, right?

> >>> This makes it clear that the test above for compatible CPUs can be quite
> >>> easily evaded by using CPU hotplug, but we don't really have a good
> >>> solution for handling that yet...  Hmmm, grumble grumble, I guess if you
> >>> hotplug unsupported CPUs on a KVM/ARM system for now, stuff will break.

>>
>> In this particular case, there was no deadlock possibility, rather the
>> existing code had insufficient synchronization against CPU hotplug.
>>
>> init_hyp_mode() would invoke cpu_init_hyp_mode() on currently online CPUs
>> using on_each_cpu(). If a CPU came online after this point and before calling
>> register_cpu_notifier(), that CPU would remain uninitialized because this
>> subsystem would miss the hot-online event. This patch fixes this bug and
>> also uses the new synchronization method (instead of get/put_online_cpus())
>> to ensure that we don't deadlock with CPU hotplug.
>>
>
> Yes, that was my conclusion as well.  Thanks for clarifying.  (It could
> be noted in the commit message as well if you should feel so inclined).
>

Please find the patch with updated changelog (and your Ack) below.
(No changes in code).

From: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: [PATCH] arm, kvm: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration

Subsystems that want to register CPU hotplug callbacks, as well as perform
initialization for the CPUs that are already online, often do it as shown
below:

	get_online_cpus();

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
		init_cpu(cpu);

	register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);

	put_online_cpus();

This is wrong, since it is prone to ABBA deadlocks involving the
cpu_add_remove_lock and the cpu_hotplug.lock (when running concurrently
with CPU hotplug operations).

Instead, the correct and race-free way of performing the callback
registration is:

	cpu_notifier_register_begin();

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
		init_cpu(cpu);

	/* Note the use of the double underscored version of the API */
	__register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);

	cpu_notifier_register_done();

In the existing arm kvm code, there is no synchronization with CPU hotplug
to avoid missing the hotplug events that might occur after invoking
init_hyp_mode() and before calling register_cpu_notifier(). Fix this bug
and also use the new synchronization method (instead of get/put_online_cpus())
to ensure that we don't deadlock with CPU hotplug.

Cc: Gleb Natapov <gleb@kernel.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>