Re: [PATCH v4 02/14] KVM: s390: pv: avoid double free of sida page

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>]

On 18.08.21 15:26, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> If kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu is called more than once, we risk calling
> free_page on a random page, since the sidad field is aliased with the
> gbea, which is not guaranteed to be zero.
> 
> The solution is to simply return successfully immediately if the vCPU
> was already non secure.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
> Fixes: 19e1227768863a1469797c13ef8fea1af7beac2c ("KVM: S390: protvirt: Introduce instruction data area bounce buffer")

Patch looks good. Do we have any potential case where we call this twice? In other words,
do we need the Fixes tag with the code as of today or not?
> ---
>   arch/s390/kvm/pv.c | 19 +++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
> index c8841f476e91..0a854115100b 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
> @@ -16,18 +16,17 @@
>   
>   int kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc)
>   {
> -	int cc = 0;
> +	int cc;
>   
> -	if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_get_handle(vcpu)) {
> -		cc = uv_cmd_nodata(kvm_s390_pv_cpu_get_handle(vcpu),
> -				   UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CPU, rc, rrc);
> +	if (!kvm_s390_pv_cpu_get_handle(vcpu))
> +		return 0;
> +
> +	cc = uv_cmd_nodata(kvm_s390_pv_cpu_get_handle(vcpu), UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CPU, rc, rrc);
> +
> +	KVM_UV_EVENT(vcpu->kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT DESTROY VCPU %d: rc %x rrc %x",
> +		     vcpu->vcpu_id, *rc, *rrc);
> +	WARN_ONCE(cc, "protvirt destroy cpu failed rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc);
>   
> -		KVM_UV_EVENT(vcpu->kvm, 3,
> -			     "PROTVIRT DESTROY VCPU %d: rc %x rrc %x",
> -			     vcpu->vcpu_id, *rc, *rrc);
> -		WARN_ONCE(cc, "protvirt destroy cpu failed rc %x rrc %x",
> -			  *rc, *rrc);
> -	}
>   	/* Intended memory leak for something that should never happen. */
>   	if (!cc)
>   		free_pages(vcpu->arch.pv.stor_base,
>