| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <bce7912a-f904-b5a3-d234-c3e2c42d9e54@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2023 16:51:36 -0500
From: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: pbonzini@...hat.com, jgg@...dia.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
farman@...ux.ibm.com, pmorel@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, frankja@...ux.ibm.com,
imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com,
jjherne@...ux.ibm.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com,
zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com, zhi.a.wang@...el.com, seanjc@...gle.com,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock
On 1/12/23 4:05 PM, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 15:38:44 -0500
> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Currently it is possible that the final put of a KVM reference comes from
>> vfio during its device close operation. This occurs while the vfio group
>> lock is held; however, if the vfio device is still in the kvm device list,
>> then the following call chain could result in a deadlock:
>>
>> kvm_put_kvm
>> -> kvm_destroy_vm
>> -> kvm_destroy_devices
>> -> kvm_vfio_destroy
>> -> kvm_vfio_file_set_kvm
>> -> vfio_file_set_kvm
>> -> group->group_lock/group_rwsem
>>
>> Avoid this scenario by having vfio core code acquire a KVM reference
>> the first time a device is opened and hold that reference until the
>> device fd is closed, at a point after the group lock has been released.
>>
>> Fixes: 421cfe6596f6 ("vfio: remove VFIO_GROUP_NOTIFY_SET_KVM")
>> Reported-by: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes from v1:
>> * Re-write using symbol get logic to get kvm ref during first device
>> open, release the ref during device fd close after group lock is
>> released
>> * Drop kvm get/put changes to drivers; now that vfio core holds a
>> kvm ref until sometime after the device_close op is called, it
>> should be fine for drivers to get and put their own references to it.
>> ---
>> drivers/vfio/group.c | 6 ++---
>> drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> include/linux/vfio.h | 1 -
>> 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/group.c b/drivers/vfio/group.c
>> index bb24b2f0271e..2b0da82f82f4 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/group.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/group.c
>> @@ -165,9 +165,9 @@ static int vfio_device_group_open(struct vfio_device *device)
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Here we pass the KVM pointer with the group under the lock. If the
>> - * device driver will use it, it must obtain a reference and release it
>> - * during close_device.
>> + * Here we pass the KVM pointer with the group under the lock. A
>> + * reference will be obtained the first time the device is opened and
>> + * will be held until the device fd is closed.
>> */
>> ret = vfio_device_open(device, device->group->iommufd,
>> device->group->kvm);
>> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
>> index 5177bb061b17..c969e2a0ecd3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
>> #include <linux/fs.h>
>> #include <linux/idr.h>
>> #include <linux/iommu.h>
>> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>> #include <linux/list.h>
>> #include <linux/miscdevice.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> @@ -344,6 +345,35 @@ static bool vfio_assert_device_open(struct vfio_device *device)
>> return !WARN_ON_ONCE(!READ_ONCE(device->open_count));
>> }
>>
>> +static bool vfio_kvm_get_kvm_safe(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + bool (*fn)(struct kvm *kvm);
>> + bool ret;
>> +
>> + fn = symbol_get(kvm_get_kvm_safe);
>> + if (WARN_ON(!fn))
>> + return false;
>> +
>> + ret = fn(kvm);
>> +
>> + symbol_put(kvm_get_kvm_safe);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void vfio_kvm_put_kvm(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + void (*fn)(struct kvm *kvm);
>> +
>> + fn = symbol_get(kvm_put_kvm);
>> + if (WARN_ON(!fn))
>> + return;
>> +
>> + fn(kvm);
>> +
>> + symbol_put(kvm_put_kvm);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int vfio_device_first_open(struct vfio_device *device,
>> struct iommufd_ctx *iommufd, struct kvm *kvm)
>> {
>> @@ -361,16 +391,24 @@ static int vfio_device_first_open(struct vfio_device *device,
>> if (ret)
>> goto err_module_put;
>>
>> + if (kvm && !vfio_kvm_get_kvm_safe(kvm)) {
>> + ret = -ENOENT;
>> + goto err_unuse_iommu;
>> + }
>> device->kvm = kvm;
>
> This could just as easily be:
>
> if (kvm && vfio_kvm_get_kvm_safe(kvm))
> device->kvm = kvm;
>
> Right? The error path would test device->kvm and we already use
> device->kvm in the release path.
Yeah, with a slight change (see below)
>
> Otherwise, in the off chance userspace hits this error, what's the
> value in generating a failure here for a device that may or may not
> have a kvm dependency. A driver with a dependency should fail if
> device->kvm is NULL.
Hmm, you have a point. Yes, I agree that any driver that needs device->kvm is responsible for checking it for NULL. I guess I was viewing this case as 'oh, we must already be on the kvm_destroy_vm path for this group' but that just means group->kvm is about to go NULL and doesn't necessarily mean that the vfio group is also going away.
Will change.
>
>> if (device->ops->open_device) {
>> ret = device->ops->open_device(device);
>> if (ret)
>> - goto err_unuse_iommu;
>> + goto err_put_kvm;
>> }
>> return 0;
>>
>> +err_put_kvm:
>> + if (kvm) {
s/kvm/device->kvm/ here to go along with your suggestion above, that way we only do the kvm_put if we previously had a successful kvm_get
>> + vfio_kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
>> + device->kvm = NULL;
>> + }
>> err_unuse_iommu:
>> - device->kvm = NULL;
>> if (iommufd)
>> vfio_iommufd_unbind(device);
>> else
>> @@ -387,7 +425,6 @@ static void vfio_device_last_close(struct vfio_device *device,
>>
>> if (device->ops->close_device)
>> device->ops->close_device(device);
>> - device->kvm = NULL;
>> if (iommufd)
>> vfio_iommufd_unbind(device);
>> else
>> @@ -465,6 +502,11 @@ static int vfio_device_fops_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filep)
>>
>> vfio_device_group_close(device);
>>
>> + if (device->open_count == 0 && device->kvm) {
>> + vfio_kvm_put_kvm(device->kvm);
>> + device->kvm = NULL;
>> + }
>
> IIUC, device->open_count is protected by device->dev_set->lock. Thanks,
Yep, thanks. I will surround this bit of code with
mutex_lock(&device->dev_set->lock);
..
mutex_unlock(&device->dev_set->lock);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists