linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v4] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <BN9PR11MB52763D861C254248FD33F65C8CC79@BN9PR11MB5276.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 09:03:30 +0000
From:   "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
To:     Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     "akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com" <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "jjherne@...ux.ibm.com" <jjherne@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "farman@...ux.ibm.com" <farman@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com" <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "frankja@...ux.ibm.com" <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "pmorel@...ux.ibm.com" <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        "intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com" <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        "pasic@...ux.ibm.com" <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "jgg@...dia.com" <jgg@...dia.com>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "linux-s390@...r.kernel.org" <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        "borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com" <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Liu, Yi L" <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
        "intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org" 
        <intel-gvt-dev@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        "Wang, Zhi A" <zhi.a.wang@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] vfio: fix potential deadlock on vfio group lock

> From: Alex Williamson
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 5:23 AM
> 
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 19:03:51 -0500
> Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >  void vfio_device_group_close(struct vfio_device *device)
> >  {
> > +	void (*put_kvm)(struct kvm *kvm);
> > +	struct kvm *kvm;
> > +
> >  	mutex_lock(&device->group->group_lock);
> > +	kvm = device->kvm;
> > +	put_kvm = device->put_kvm;
> >  	vfio_device_close(device, device->group->iommufd);
> > +	if (kvm == device->kvm)
> > +		kvm = NULL;
> 
> Hmm, so we're using whether the device->kvm pointer gets cleared in
> last_close to detect whether we should put the kvm reference.  That's a
> bit obscure.  Our get and put is also asymmetric.
> 
> Did we decide that we couldn't do this via a schedule_work() from the
> last_close function, ie. implementing our own version of an async put?
> It seems like that potentially has a cleaner implementation, symmetric
> call points, handling all the storing and clearing of kvm related
> pointers within the get/put wrappers, passing only a vfio_device to the
> put wrapper, using the "vfio_device_" prefix for both.  Potentially
> we'd just want an unconditional flush outside of lock here for
> deterministic release.
> 
> What's the downside?  Thanks,
> 

btw I guess this can be also fixed by Yi's work here:

https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20230117134942.101112-6-yi.l.liu@intel.com/

with set_kvm(NULL) moved to the release callback of kvm_vfio device,
such circular lock dependency can be avoided too.