[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YicO+aF4VhaBYNqK@google.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 08:08:25 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: mst <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: Protect the virtqueue from being cleared
whilst still in use
On Tue, 08 Mar 2022, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > vhost_vsock_handle_tx_kick() already holds the mutex during its call
> > to vhost_get_vq_desc(). All we have to do here is take the same lock
> > during virtqueue clean-up and we mitigate the reported issues.
> >
> > Also WARN() as a precautionary measure. The purpose of this is to
> > capture possible future race conditions which may pop up over time.
> >
> > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=279432d30d825e63ba00
> >
> > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > Reported-by: syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > ---
> > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 10 ++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > index 59edb5a1ffe28..ef7e371e3e649 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > @@ -693,6 +693,15 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > int i;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> > + /* No workers should run here by design. However, races have
> > + * previously occurred where drivers have been unable to flush
> > + * all work properly prior to clean-up. Without a successful
> > + * flush the guest will malfunction, but avoiding host memory
> > + * corruption in those cases does seem preferable.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex));
> > +
>
> I don't get how this can help, the mutex could be grabbed in the
> middle of the above and below line.
The worst that happens in this slim scenario is we miss a warning.
The mutexes below will still function as expected and prevent possible
memory corruption.
> > + mutex_lock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex);
> > if (dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx)
> > eventfd_ctx_put(dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx);
> > if (dev->vqs[i]->kick)
> > @@ -700,6 +709,7 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > if (dev->vqs[i]->call_ctx.ctx)
> > eventfd_ctx_put(dev->vqs[i]->call_ctx.ctx);
> > vhost_vq_reset(dev, dev->vqs[i]);
> > + mutex_unlock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex);
> > }
>
> I'm not sure it's correct to assume some behaviour of a buggy device.
> For the device mutex, we use that to protect more than just err/call
> and vq.
When I authored this, I did so as *the* fix. However, since the cause
of today's crash has now been patched, this has become a belt and
braces solution. Michael's addition of the WARN() also has the
benefit of providing us with an early warning system for future
breakages. Personally, I think it's kinda neat.
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists