[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yh+q59WsjgCdMcP7@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 17:35:35 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Ben Gardon <bgardon@...gle.com>,
Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 22/28] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap defunct roots via
asynchronous worker
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> However, I think we now need a module_get/module_put when creating/destroying
> a VM; the workers can outlive kvm_vm_release and therefore any reference
> automatically taken by VFS's fops_get/fops_put.
Haven't read the rest of the patch, but this caught my eye. We _already_ need
to handle this scenario. As you noted, any worker, i.e. anything that takes a
reference via kvm_get_kvm() without any additional guarantee that the module can't
be unloaded is suspect. x86 is mostly fine, though kvm_setup_async_pf() is likely
affected, and other architectures seem to have bugs.
Google has an internal patch that addresses this. I believe David is going to post
the fix... David?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists