linux-kernel - [PATCH] KVM: guest_memfd: Elaborate on how release() vs. get

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251113232229.1698886-1-seanjc@google.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 15:22:29 -0800
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>, Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>, 
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH] KVM: guest_memfd: Elaborate on how release() vs. get_pfn() is
 safe against UAF

Add more context and information to the comment in kvm_gmem_release() that
explains why there's no synchronization on RCU _or_ kvm->srcu.  Point (b)
from commit 67b43038ce14 ("KVM: guest_memfd: Remove RCU-protected attribute
from slot->gmem.file")

      b) kvm->srcu ensures that kvm_gmem_unbind() and freeing of a memslot
         occur after the memslot is no longer visible to kvm_gmem_get_pfn().

is especially difficult to fully grok, particularly in light of commit
ae431059e75d ("KVM: guest_memfd: Remove bindings on memslot deletion when
gmem is dying"), which addressed a race between unbind() and release().

No functional change intended.

Cc: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@...el.com>
Cc: Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
---
 virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
index fdaea3422c30..2e09d7ec0cfc 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/guest_memfd.c
@@ -338,17 +338,25 @@ static int kvm_gmem_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 	 * dereferencing the slot for existing bindings needs to be protected
 	 * against memslot updates, specifically so that unbind doesn't race
 	 * and free the memslot (kvm_gmem_get_file() will return NULL).
-	 *
-	 * Since .release is called only when the reference count is zero,
-	 * after which file_ref_get() and get_file_active() fail,
-	 * kvm_gmem_get_pfn() cannot be using the file concurrently.
-	 * file_ref_put() provides a full barrier, and get_file_active() the
-	 * matching acquire barrier.
 	 */
 	mutex_lock(&kvm->slots_lock);
 
 	filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping);
 
+	/*
+	 * Note!  synchronize_srcu() is _not_ needed after nullifying memslot
+	 * bindings as slot->gmem.file cannot be set back to a non-null value
+	 * without the memslot first being deleted.  I.e. this relies on the
+	 * synchronize_srcu_expedited() in kvm_swap_active_memslots() to ensure
+	 * kvm_gmem_get_pfn() (which runs with kvm->srcu held for read) can't
+	 * grab a reference to slot->gmem.file even if the struct file object
+	 * is reallocated.
+	 *
+	 * file_ref_put() provides a full barrier, and __get_file_rcu() the
+	 * matching acquire barrier, to ensure that kvm_gmem_get_file() (via
+	 * __get_file_rcu()) sees refcount==0 or fails the "file reloaded"
+	 * check (file != NULL due to nullifying the file pointer here).
+	 */
 	xa_for_each(&f->bindings, index, slot)
 		WRITE_ONCE(slot->gmem.file, NULL);
 

base-commit: 16ec4fb4ac95d878b879192d280db2baeec43272
-- 
2.52.0.rc1.455.g30608eb744-goog