linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM: Assert that a destroyed/freed vCPU is no longer visible

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: <Z73U38mSuk_tOpqT@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 06:35:40 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, 
	Tianrui Zhao <zhaotianrui@...ngson.cn>, Bibo Mao <maobibo@...ngson.cn>, 
	Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, 
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>, Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, 
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>, Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>, 
	Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev, 
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, 
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>, Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>, 
	Rick P Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, Kai Huang <kai.huang@...el.com>, 
	Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM: Assert that a destroyed/freed vCPU is no longer visible

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:55:38PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > After freeing a vCPU, assert that it is no longer reachable, and that
> > kvm_get_vcpu() doesn't return garbage or a pointer to some other vCPU.
> > While KVM obviously shouldn't be attempting to access a freed vCPU, it's
> > all too easy for KVM to make a VM-wide request, e.g. via KVM_BUG_ON() or
> > kvm_flush_remote_tlbs().
> > 
> > Alternatively, KVM could short-circuit problematic paths if the VM's
> > refcount has gone to zero, e.g. in kvm_make_all_cpus_request(), or KVM
> > could try disallow making global requests during teardown.  But given that
> > deleting the vCPU from the array Just Works, adding logic to the requests
> > path is unnecessary, and trying to make requests illegal during teardown
> > would be a fool's errand.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 8 ++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > index 201c14ff476f..991e8111e88b 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > @@ -489,6 +489,14 @@ void kvm_destroy_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
> >  	kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> >  		kvm_vcpu_destroy(vcpu);
> >  		xa_erase(&kvm->vcpu_array, i);
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Assert that the vCPU isn't visible in any way, to ensure KVM
> > +		 * doesn't trigger a use-after-free if destroying vCPUs results
> > +		 * in VM-wide request, e.g. to flush remote TLBs when tearing
> > +		 * down MMUs, or to mark the VM dead if a KVM_BUG_ON() fires.
> > +		 */
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(xa_load(&kvm->vcpu_array, i) || kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, i));
> As xa_erase() says "After this function returns, loading from @index will return
> %NULL", is this checking of xa_load() necessary?

None of this is "necessary".  My goal with the assert is to (a) document that KVM
relies the vCPU to be NULL/unreachable and (b) to help ensure that doesn't change
in the future.  Checking xa_load() is mostly about (a).

That said, I agree checking xa_load() is more than a bit gratuitous.  I have no
objection to checking only kvm_get_vcpu().