[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEsjmCNQPjxPjXL0WUfbMg8ARnumEp4yjUxqznMKR1nKSQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2022 14:15:56 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: mst <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
netdev <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 Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:18 AM Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> vhost_vsock_handle_tx_kick() already holds the mutex during its call
> to vhost_get_vq_desc(). All we have to do here is take the same lock
> during virtqueue clean-up and we mitigate the reported issues.
>
> Also WARN() as a precautionary measure. The purpose of this is to
> capture possible future race conditions which may pop up over time.
>
> 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 | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index 59edb5a1ffe28..ef7e371e3e649 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -693,6 +693,15 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> + /* No workers should run here by design. However, races have
> + * previously occurred where drivers have been unable to flush
> + * all work properly prior to clean-up. Without a successful
> + * flush the guest will malfunction, but avoiding host memory
> + * corruption in those cases does seem preferable.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex));
> +
I don't get how this can help, the mutex could be grabbed in the
middle of the above and below line.
> + 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 +709,7 @@ 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);
> }
I'm not sure it's correct to assume some behaviour of a buggy device.
For the device mutex, we use that to protect more than just err/call
and vq.
Thanks
> vhost_dev_free_iovecs(dev);
> if (dev->log_ctx)
> --
> 2.35.1.616.g0bdcbb4464-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists