From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97D6C43461 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD430611B0 for ; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1351618AbhERSmP (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2021 14:42:15 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:5846 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343747AbhERSmN (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 May 2021 14:42:13 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14IIX1oq108596; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:40:53 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=mpWbosnb8VVA/+zebGzaWvCztpF3Pmo6b6Ffz3h8D6M=; b=GF1/CQ0tO7HVUVmSFIWDhZWNZWdEV0xZ4a8E7W7KXNCMZ5YLE0BE6OGhsSSiw20gHdfH PI5uZ7r4deC86VMPHTe5cIN4iyVMuRvajJtFwo3jFYBBdxOCfo9/zOaz/dUrF8w+H2Eq HIJNbDDkIqCCxSnyzsyiQTUFlgPjt23KQW0hyobg7/ZE/XXjzEmYaILXHCQ5FxceVtJk d8Wt3msGRApKaPmKBJp/Nk1KkvOHnTbh+fxRYU9xmvSmCbS1TSd0jz2HErDNpTEnr7LD xc1Bivj/843L+OBwmhh3IwZzhKkJwVH6N3DoSfTN2PQQXqgaVEvrXZhC0wtp8WF/zGKK aQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38mjp0gnht-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 May 2021 14:40:53 -0400 Received: from m0098420.ppops.net (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14IIWx49108491; Tue, 18 May 2021 14:40:52 -0400 Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38mjp0gnhk-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 May 2021 14:40:52 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 14IIR09h009449; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:52 GMT Received: from b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.24]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38jyu21u94-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:52 +0000 Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.111]) by b01cxnp22034.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 14IIepXV16908594 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:51 GMT Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A0BAC067; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E057AC064; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cpe-172-100-179-72.stny.res.rr.com (unknown [9.85.177.219]) by b01ledav006.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 May 2021 18:40:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback To: Christian Borntraeger , Halil Pasic Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com, pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com, jjherne@linux.ibm.com, jgg@nvidia.com, alex.williamson@redhat.com, kwankhede@nvidia.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, Tony Krowiak References: <20210510214837.359717-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> <20210512203536.4209c29c.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <4c156ab8-da49-4867-f29c-9712c2628d44@linux.ibm.com> <20210513194541.58d1628a.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <243086e2-08a0-71ed-eb7e-618a62b007e4@linux.ibm.com> <20210514021500.60ad2a22.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <594374f6-8cf6-4c22-0bac-3b224c55bbb6@linux.ibm.com> <20210517211030.368ca64b.pasic@linux.ibm.com> <966a60ad-bdde-68d0-ae2f-06121c6ad970@de.ibm.com> <9ebd5fd8-b093-e5bc-e680-88fa7a9b085c@linux.ibm.com> <494af62b-dc9a-ef2c-1869-d8f5ed239504@de.ibm.com> <00c86767-ce8b-7050-f665-75f33fabe118@linux.ibm.com> From: Tony Krowiak Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:40:50 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: ZfqPp2KACaBZ4PrxRs_5pB4luxdWLoU9 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: EOeZv6PZOHf2JNy4zPOU4sbQIDdZkMty X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-05-18_09:2021-05-18,2021-05-18 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2105180128 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 5/18/21 2:22 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 18.05.21 20:14, Tony Krowiak wrote: >> >> >> On 5/18/21 9:59 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 18.05.21 15:42, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/18/21 5:30 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17.05.21 21:10, Halil Pasic wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 09:37:42 -0400 >>>>>> Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because of this, I don't think the rest of your argument is valid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Okay, so your concern is that between the point in time the >>>>>>> vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook pointer is checked in >>>>>>> priv.c and the point in time the handle_pqap() function >>>>>>> in vfio_ap_ops.c is called, the memory allocated for the >>>>>>> matrix_mdev containing the struct kvm_s390_module_hook >>>>>>> may get freed, thus rendering the function pointer invalid. >>>>>>> While not impossible, that seems extremely unlikely to >>>>>>> happen. Can you articulate a scenario where that could >>>>>>> even occur? >>>>>> >>>>>> Malicious userspace. We tend to do the pqap aqic just once >>>>>> in the guest right after the queue is detected. I do agree >>>>>> it ain't very likely to happen during normal operation. But why are >>>>>> you asking? >>>>> >>>>> Would it help, if the code in priv.c would read the hook once >>>>> and then only work on the copy? We could protect that with rcu >>>>> and do a synchronize rcu in vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm after >>>>> unsetting the pointer? >>>> >>>> I'll look into this. >>> >>> I think it could work. in priv.c use rcu_readlock, save the >>> pointer, do the check and call, call rcu_read_unlock. >>> In vfio_ap use rcu_assign_pointer to set the pointer and >>> after setting it to zero call sychronize_rcu. >>> >>> Halil, I think we can do this as an addon patch as it makes >>> sense to have this callback pointer protected independent of >>> this patch. Agree? >> >> I agree that this is a viable option; however, this does not >> guarantee that the matrix_mdev is not freed thus rendering >> the function pointer to the interception handler invalid unless >> that is also included within the rcu_readlock/rcu_read_unlock. > > The trick should be the sychronize_rcu. This will put the deleting > code (vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm) to sleep until the rcu read section > has finished. So if you first set the pointer to zero, then call > synchronize_rcu the code will only progress until all users of > the old poiner have finished. Yes, that is my understanding too. > >> That is not possible given the matrix_mdev is freed within >> the remove callback and the pointer to the structure that >> contains the interception handler function pointer is cleared >> in the vfio_ap_mdev_unset_kvm() function. I am working on >> a patch and should be able to post it before EOD or first thing >> tomorrow. >>