netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: Protect the virtqueue from being cleared whilst still in use

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: <20220302095045-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 2 Mar 2022 09:51:13 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     jasowang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: Protect the virtqueue from being cleared
 whilst still in use

On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 01:56:35PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:54:21AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > vhost_vsock_handle_tx_kick() already holds the mutex during its call
> > > to vhost_get_vq_desc().  All we have to do is take the same lock
> > > during virtqueue clean-up and we mitigate the reported issues.
> > > 
> > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=279432d30d825e63ba00
> > > 
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > index 59edb5a1ffe28..bbaff6a5e21b8 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> > > @@ -693,6 +693,7 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > >  	int i;
> > >  
> > >  	for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> > > +		mutex_lock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex);
> > >  		if (dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx)
> > >  			eventfd_ctx_put(dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx);
> > >  		if (dev->vqs[i]->kick)
> > > @@ -700,6 +701,7 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> > >  		if (dev->vqs[i]->call_ctx.ctx)
> > >  			eventfd_ctx_put(dev->vqs[i]->call_ctx.ctx);
> > >  		vhost_vq_reset(dev, dev->vqs[i]);
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex);
> > >  	}
> > 
> > So this is a mitigation plan but the bug is still there though
> > we don't know exactly what it is.  I would prefer adding something like
> > WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(vqs[i]->mutex) here - does this make sense?
> 
> As a rework to this, or as a subsequent patch?

Can be a separate patch.

> Just before the first lock I assume?

I guess so, yes.

> -- 
> Lee Jones [李琼斯]
> Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services
> Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs
> Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog