[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240429202458.GR231144@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 17:24:58 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Baolu Lu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@...dia.com>, Yi Liu <yi.l.liu@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Joel Granados <j.granados@...sung.com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] iommu: Replace sva_iommu with iommu_attach_handle
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 06:22:28PM +0800, Baolu Lu wrote:
> /* A bond already exists, just take a reference`. */
> handle = iommu_attach_handle_get(group, iommu_mm->pasid);
> if (handle) {
> if (handle->domain->iopf_handler != iommu_sva_iopf_handler)
> {
> ret = -EBUSY;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
> refcount_inc(&handle->users);
> mutex_unlock(&iommu_sva_lock);
> return handle;
> }
>
> But it appears that this code is not lock safe. If the domain on the
> PASID is not a SVA domain, the check of "handle->domain->iopf_handler !=
> iommu_sva_iopf_handler" could result in a use-after-free issue as the
> other thread might detach the domain in between the fetch and check
> lines.
For the above you just need to pass in the iommu_sva_iopf_handler as
an argument to attach_handle_get() and have it check it under the
xa_lock.
The whole thing is already protected under the ugly sva_lock.
Ideally it would be protected by the group mutex..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists