[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240213121201.GA28682@willie-the-truck>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:12:01 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: Fix double-free following
kvm_pgtable_stage2_free_unlinked()
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 11:12:34AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:14:37 +0000,
> Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 07:30:52PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Sending this as an RFC as I only spotted it from code inspection and I'm
> > > surprised others aren't seeing fireworks if it's a genuine bug. I also
> > > couldn't come up with a sensible Fixes tag, as all of:
> > >
> > > e7c05540c694b ("KVM: arm64: Add helper for creating unlinked stage2 subtrees")
> > > 8f5a3eb7513fc ("KVM: arm64: Add kvm_pgtable_stage2_split()")
> > > f6a27d6dc51b2 ("KVM: arm64: Drop last page ref in kvm_pgtable_stage2_free_removed()")
>
> I'd blame it on the last commit, as we really ought to have it if we
> have the others.
Yes, that's probably the best approach if you're adding a Fixes tag.
> > > @@ -1502,7 +1501,6 @@ static int stage2_split_walker(const struct kvm_pgtable_visit_ctx *ctx,
> > >
> > > if (!stage2_try_break_pte(ctx, mmu)) {
> > > kvm_pgtable_stage2_free_unlinked(mm_ops, childp, level);
> > > - mm_ops->put_page(childp);
> > > return -EAGAIN;
> > > }
> >
> > This, on the other hand, seems possible. There exists a race where an
> > old block PTE could have the AF set on it and the underlying cmpxchg()
> > could fail. There shouldn't be a race with any software walkers, as we
> > hold the MMU lock for write here.
>
> AF update is indeed a likely candidate.
>
> In any case, this patch looks good to me as it is, and we can always
> have a separate tweak to adjust the severity of the first case as
> required. Unless anyone objects, I'd like to queue it shortly.
Fine by me! Even though I found it by inspection, I have taken the patch
for a spin to check that I (somehow) didn't break something else.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists