linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/vfio-ap: fix circular lockdep when setting/clearing crypto masks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f709d4ec-c07a-3814-6f4d-27e1aaefada2@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:03:38 -0500
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, kwankhede@...dia.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] s390/vfio-ap: fix circular lockdep when
 setting/clearing crypto masks



On 2/10/21 10:24 AM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:53:34 +0100
> Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue,  9 Feb 2021 14:48:30 -0500
>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This patch fixes a circular locking dependency in the CI introduced by
>>> commit f21916ec4826 ("s390/vfio-ap: clean up vfio_ap resources when KVM
>>> pointer invalidated"). The lockdep only occurs when starting a Secure
>>> Execution guest. Crypto virtualization (vfio_ap) is not yet supported for
>>> SE guests; however, in order to avoid CI errors, this fix is being
>>> provided.
>>>
>>> The circular lockdep was introduced when the masks in the guest's APCB
>>> were taken under the matrix_dev->lock. While the lock is definitely
>>> needed to protect the setting/unsetting of the KVM pointer, it is not
>>> necessarily critical for setting the masks, so this will not be done under
>>> protection of the matrix_dev->lock.
>>>
>>> Fixes: f21916ec4826 ("s390/vfio-ap: clean up vfio_ap resources when KVM pointer invalidated")
>>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>   1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>    
>>>   static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
>>>   {
>>> -	kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>> -	matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
>>> -	vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
>>> -	kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>> -	matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
>>> +	if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
>> If you're doing setting/unsetting under matrix_dev->lock, is it
>> possible that matrix_mdev->kvm gets unset between here and the next
>> line, as you don't hold the lock?
>>
>> Maybe you could
>> - grab a reference to kvm while holding the lock
>> - call the mask handling functions with that kvm reference
>> - lock again, drop the reference, and do the rest of the processing?
> I agree, matrix_mdev->kvm can go NULL any time and we are risking
> a null pointer dereference here.
>
> Another idea would be to do
>
>
> static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev)
> {
>          struct kvm *kvm;
>                                                          
>          mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>          if (matrix_mdev->kvm) {
>                  kvm = matrix_mdev->kvm;
>                  matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
>                  mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>                  kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(kvm);
>                  mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>                  matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
>                  vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
>                  kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
>          }
>          mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
> }
>
> That way only one unset would actually do the unset and cleanup
> and every other invocation would bail out with only checking
> matrix_mdev->kvm.

How ironic, that is exactly what I did after agreeing with Connie.

>
>   
>>> +		kvm_arch_crypto_clear_masks(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>> +		mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>> +		matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL;
>>> +		vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(matrix_mdev->mdev);
>>> +		kvm_put_kvm(matrix_mdev->kvm);
>>> +		matrix_mdev->kvm = NULL;
>>> +		mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>>> +	}
>>>   }