linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback

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]

Date:   Thu, 13 May 2021 10:35:05 -0400
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        borntraeger@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
        pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, jgg@...dia.com,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...y.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback



On 5/12/21 2:35 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On Mon, 10 May 2021 17:48:37 -0400
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> The mdev remove callback for the vfio_ap device driver bails out with
>> -EBUSY if the mdev is in use by a KVM guest. The intended purpose was
>> to prevent the mdev from being removed while in use; however, returning a
>> non-zero rc does not prevent removal. This could result in a memory leak
>> of the resources allocated when the mdev was created. In addition, the
>> KVM guest will still have access to the AP devices assigned to the mdev
>> even though the mdev no longer exists.
>>
>> To prevent this scenario, cleanup will be done - including unplugging the
>> AP adapters, domains and control domains - regardless of whether the mdev
>> is in use by a KVM guest or not.
>>
>> Fixes: 258287c994de ("s390: vfio-ap: implement mediated device open callback")
>> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...y.rr.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 13 ++-----------
>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> index b2c7e10dfdcd..f90c9103dac2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@
>>
>>   static int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(struct mdev_device *mdev);
>>   static struct vfio_ap_queue *vfio_ap_find_queue(int apqn);
>> +static void vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev);
>>
>>   static int match_apqn(struct device *dev, const void *data)
>>   {
>> @@ -366,17 +367,7 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_remove(struct mdev_device *mdev)
>>   	struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev = mdev_get_drvdata(mdev);
>>
>>   	mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> -
>> -	/*
>> -	 * If the KVM pointer is in flux or the guest is running, disallow
>> -	 * un-assignment of control domain.
>> -	 */
>> -	if (matrix_mdev->kvm_busy || matrix_mdev->kvm) {
>> -		mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->lock);
>> -		return -EBUSY;
>> -	}
>> -
>> -	vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queues(mdev);
>> +	vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm(matrix_mdev);
>>   	list_del(&matrix_mdev->node);
>>   	kfree(matrix_mdev);
> Are we at risk of handle_pqap() in arch/s390/kvm/priv.c using an
> already freed pqap_hook (which is a member of the matrix_mdev pointee
> that is freed just above my comment).
>
> I'm aware of the fact that vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm() does a
> matrix_mdev->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook = NULL but that is
> AFRICT not done under any lock relevant for handle_pqap(). I guess
> the idea is, I guess, the check cited below
>
> static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> [..]
>          /*
>           * Verify that the hook callback is registered, lock the owner
>           * and call the hook.
>           */
>          if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook) {
>                  if (!try_module_get(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner))
>                          return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>                  ret = vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->hook(vcpu);
>                  module_put(vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook->owner);
>                  if (!ret && vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0x00ff0000)
>                          kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
>                  return ret;
>          }
>
> is going to catch it, but I'm not sure it is guaranteed to catch it.
> Opinions?

The hook itself - handle_pqap() function in vfio_ap_ops.c - also checks
to see if the reference to the hook is set and terminates with an error 
if it
is not. If the hook is invoked subsequent to the remove callback above,
all should be fine since the check is also done under the matrix_dev->lock.

>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>
>>   	mdev_set_drvdata(mdev, NULL);