linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: control access to PQAP(AQIC) interception handler

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20210521183031.GC1002214@nvidia.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 May 2021 15:30:31 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To:     Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...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,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] s390/vfio-ap: control access to PQAP(AQIC)
 interception handler

On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 02:24:33PM -0400, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> 
> > The simple solution in sketch is just this:
> 
> The code below results in a lockdep WARN_ON for the
> reasons documented in my comments interspersed in
> the code.

Sure, to be expected for a 2 min effort, but you seem to have solved
it by trivially putting things in the right locking order?

> After trying several different permutations using RCU and
> an rw_semaphore, I came to the conclusion that setting and
> clearing the hook pointer while the mdev fd is being open
> and closed or when the mdev is being removed unnecessarily
> complicates things. There is no good reason to set/clear the
> function pointer at this time, nor is there any compelling
> reason to store the function pointer in a satellite structure
> of the kvm struct. Since the hook function's lifespan coincides
> with the lifespan of the vfio_ap module, why not store it
> when the module is loaded and clear it when the module is
> unloaded? 

Well, the hook function isn't really the problem..

> Access to the function pointer can be controlled by a lock
> that is independent of the matrix_dev->lock, thus avoiding
> potential lock dependencies. Access to the mdev is controlled by
> the matrix_dev lock, so if the mdev is retrieved from the
> matrix_dev->mdev_list in the hook function, then we are assured
> that the mdev will never be accessed after it is freed; problem solved.

This just transforms the problem into needing to hold a lock around
mdev_list while accessing a member of the mdev_list

Is it simpler?

Jason