On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 11:55:28AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/7/22 下午4:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 01:21:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/7/21 下午6:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 03:08:00AM -0700, syzbot wrote: > > > > > syzbot has bisected this bug to: > > > > > > > > > > commit 7f466032dc9e5a61217f22ea34b2df932786bbfc > > > > > Author: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com> > > > > > Date: Fri May 24 08:12:18 2019 +0000 > > > > > > > > > > vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address > > > > > > > > > > bisection log: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/bisect.txt?x=149a8a20600000 > > > > > start commit: 6d21a41b Add linux-next specific files for 20190718 > > > > > git tree: linux-next > > > > > final crash: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/report.txt?x=169a8a20600000 > > > > > console output: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=129a8a20600000 > > > > > kernel config: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=3430a151e1452331 > > > > > dashboard link: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=e58112d71f77113ddb7b > > > > > syz repro: > > > > > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=10139e68600000 > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+e58112d71f77113dd...@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > Fixes: 7f466032dc9e ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual > > > > > address") > > > > > > > > > > For information about bisection process see: > > > > > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#bisection > > > > OK I poked at this for a bit, I see several things that > > > > we need to fix, though I'm not yet sure it's the reason for > > > > the failures: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. mmu_notifier_register shouldn't be called from > > > > vhost_vring_set_num_addr > > > > That's just a bad hack, > > > > > > This is used to avoid holding lock when checking whether the addresses are > > > overlapped. Otherwise we need to take spinlock for each invalidation > > > request > > > even if it was the va range that is not interested for us. This will be > > > very > > > slow e.g during guest boot. > > KVM seems to do exactly that. > > I tried and guest does not seem to boot any slower. > > Do you observe any slowdown? > > > Yes I do. > > > > > > Now I took a hard look at the uaddr hackery it really makes > > me nervious. So I think for this release we want something > > safe, and optimizations on top. As an alternative revert the > > optimization and try again for next merge window. > > > Will post a series of fixes, let me know if you're ok with that. > > Thanks
I'd prefer you to take a hard look at the patch I posted which makes code cleaner, and ad optimizations on top. But other ways could be ok too. > > > > >
