[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALzav=dzqOp-css8kgqHhCLJnbUrUZt+e_YStCj2HFy0oD+vGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:33:22 -0800
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
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 list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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 2, 2022 at 9:35 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
This was towards the back of my queue but I can bump it to the front.
I'll have the patches out this week.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists