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:   Tue, 18 May 2021 20:22:34 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        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 18.05.21 20:14, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/18/21 9:59 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 18.05.21 15:42, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/18/21 5:30 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17.05.21 21:10, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 09:37:42 -0400
>>>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because of this, I don't think the rest of your argument is valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, so your concern is that between the point in time the
>>>>>> vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook pointer is checked in
>>>>>> priv.c and the point in time the handle_pqap() function
>>>>>> in vfio_ap_ops.c is called, the memory allocated for the
>>>>>> matrix_mdev containing the struct kvm_s390_module_hook
>>>>>> may get freed, thus rendering the function pointer invalid.
>>>>>> While not impossible, that seems extremely unlikely to
>>>>>> happen. Can you articulate a scenario where that could
>>>>>> even occur?
>>>>>
>>>>> Malicious userspace. We tend to do the pqap aqic just once
>>>>> in the guest right after the queue is detected. I do agree
>>>>> it ain't very likely to happen during normal operation. But why are
>>>>> you asking?
>>>>
>>>> Would it help, if the code in priv.c would read the hook once
>>>> and then only work on the copy? We could protect that with rcu
>>>> and do a synchronize rcu in vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm after
>>>> unsetting the pointer?
>>>
>>> I'll look into this.
>>
>> I think it could work. in priv.c use rcu_readlock, save the
>> pointer, do the check and call, call rcu_read_unlock.
>> In vfio_ap use rcu_assign_pointer to set the pointer and
>> after setting it to zero call sychronize_rcu.
>>
>> Halil, I think we can do this as an addon patch as it makes
>> sense to have this callback pointer protected independent of
>> this patch. Agree?
> 
> I agree that this is a viable option; however, this does not
> guarantee that the matrix_mdev is not freed thus rendering
> the function pointer to the interception handler invalid unless
> that is also included within the rcu_readlock/rcu_read_unlock.

The trick should be the sychronize_rcu. This will put the deleting
code (vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm) to sleep until the rcu read section
has finished. So if you first set the pointer to zero, then call
synchronize_rcu the code will only progress until all users of
the old poiner have finished.

> That is not possible given the matrix_mdev is freed within
> the remove callback and the pointer to the structure that
> contains the interception handler function pointer is cleared
> in the vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm() function. I am working on
> a patch and should be able to post it before EOD or first thing
> tomorrow.
>