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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:57:57 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:     mst@...hat.com, 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 Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 08:10:06AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2022, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:17:57PM +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 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));
> > 
> > So you are trading one syzbot triggered issue for another one in the
> > future?  :)
> > 
> > If this ever can happen, handle it, but don't log it with a WARN_ON() as
> > that will trigger the panic-on-warn boxes, as well as syzbot.  Unless
> > you want that to happen?
> 
> No, Syzbot doesn't report warnings, only BUGs and memory corruption.

Has it changed?  Last I looked, it did trigger on WARN_* calls, which
has resulted in a huge number of kernel fixes because of that.

> > And what happens if the mutex is locked _RIGHT_ after you checked it?
> > You still have a race...
> 
> No, we miss a warning that one time.  Memory is still protected.

Then don't warn on something that doesn't matter.  This line can be
dropped as there's nothing anyone can do about it, right?

thanks,

greg k-h