Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

vmm: fix vcpu atomic load
ClosedPublic

Authored by br on Oct 28 2024, 1:15 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Nov 30, 11:23 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Nov 28, 5:55 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 19, 3:37 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 13, 12:34 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 6, 10:44 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 6, 8:37 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Wed, Nov 6, 3:07 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Tue, Nov 5, 8:59 PM

Details

Summary

Load vcpu with acquire semantics as we are making a critical section between creating vcpu and using it.

Test Plan

tested on risc-v only

Diff Detail

Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped

Event Timeline

br requested review of this revision.Oct 28 2024, 1:15 PM

In particular, this is paired with an atomic_store_rel_ptr a few lines below. I think in practice this is probably a no-op as any dependent memory accesses are reads of data that vcpu points to, and if you had a mispredicted read it would never dereference a "wrong" pointer, it would just see a NULL pointer and stop once speculation ran into a fault. That said, I do think this is more correct.

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Oct 28 2024, 1:29 PM
In D47306#1078749, @jhb wrote:

In particular, this is paired with an atomic_store_rel_ptr a few lines below. I think in practice this is probably a no-op as any dependent memory accesses are reads of data that vcpu points to, and if you had a mispredicted read it would never dereference a "wrong" pointer, it would just see a NULL pointer and stop once speculation ran into a fault. That said, I do think this is more correct.

This is perhaps a use-case for atomic_load_consume_ptr()? I think I agree that an acq fence is not formally required, but it looks wrong at first glance.

As an aside, we have #define atomic_load_ptr(p) (*(volatile __typeof(*p) *)(p)) - I wonder why atomic_load_acq_ptr isn't similarly defined.

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.