thr3ads.net - Linux Virtualization - [PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Jason Wang

2019-Jul-03 09:53 UTC

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

On 2019/6/28 ??8:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:> Some callbacks used by the upper layers can run while we are in the
> .remove(). A potential use-after-free can happen, because we free
> the_virtio_vsock without knowing if the callbacks are over or not.
>
> To solve this issue we move the assignment of the_virtio_vsock at the
> end of .probe(), when we finished all the initialization, and at the
> beginning of .remove(), before to release resources.
> For the same reason, we do the same also for the vdev->priv.
>
> We use RCU to be sure that all callbacks that use the_virtio_vsock
> ended before freeing it. This is not required for callbacks that
> use vdev->priv, because after the vdev->config->del_vqs() we are
sure
> that they are ended and will no longer be invoked.
>
> We also take the mutex during the .remove() to avoid that .probe() can
> run while we are resetting the device.
>
> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> ---
>   net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> index 9c287e3e393c..7ad510ec12e0 100644
> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> @@ -65,19 +65,22 @@ struct virtio_vsock {
>   	u32 guest_cid;
>   };
>   
> -static struct virtio_vsock *virtio_vsock_get(void)
> -{
> -	return the_virtio_vsock;
> -}
> -
>   static u32 virtio_transport_get_local_cid(void)
>   {
> -	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> +	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
> +	u32 ret;
>   
> -	if (!vsock)
> -		return VMADDR_CID_ANY;
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
> +	if (!vsock) {
> +		ret = VMADDR_CID_ANY;
> +		goto out_rcu;
> +	}
>   
> -	return vsock->guest_cid;
> +	ret = vsock->guest_cid;
> +out_rcu:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work)
> @@ -197,14 +200,18 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt
*pkt)
>   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>   	int len = pkt->len;
>   
> -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
>   	if (!vsock) {
>   		virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
> -		return -ENODEV;
> +		len = -ENODEV;
> +		goto out_rcu;
>   	}
>   
> -	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid)
> -		return virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
> +	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid) {
> +		len = virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
> +		goto out_rcu;
> +	}
>   
>   	if (pkt->reply)
>   		atomic_inc(&vsock->queued_replies);
> @@ -214,6 +221,9 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>   	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>   
>   	queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->send_pkt_work);
> +
> +out_rcu:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>   	return len;
>   }
>   
> @@ -222,12 +232,14 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>   {
>   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>   	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt, *n;
> -	int cnt = 0;
> +	int cnt = 0, ret;
>   	LIST_HEAD(freeme);
>   
> -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
>   	if (!vsock) {
> -		return -ENODEV;
> +		ret = -ENODEV;
> +		goto out_rcu;
>   	}
>   
>   	spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> @@ -255,7 +267,11 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock *vsk)
>   			queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->rx_work);
>   	}
>   
> -	return 0;
> +	ret = 0;
> +
> +out_rcu:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	return ret;
>   }
>   
>   static void virtio_vsock_rx_fill(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
> @@ -590,8 +606,6 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
>   	vsock->rx_buf_max_nr = 0;
>   	atomic_set(&vsock->queued_replies, 0);
>   
> -	vdev->priv = vsock;
> -	the_virtio_vsock = vsock;
>   	mutex_init(&vsock->tx_lock);
>   	mutex_init(&vsock->rx_lock);
>   	mutex_init(&vsock->event_lock);
> @@ -613,6 +627,9 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
>   	virtio_vsock_event_fill(vsock);
>   	mutex_unlock(&vsock->event_lock);
>   
> +	vdev->priv = vsock;
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, vsock);

You probably need to use rcu_dereference_protected() to access 
the_virtio_vsock in the function in order to survive from sparse.

> +
>   	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
>   	return 0;
>   
> @@ -627,6 +644,12 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
>   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = vdev->priv;
>   	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt;
>   
> +	mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> +
> +	vdev->priv = NULL;
> +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, NULL);

This is still suspicious, can we access the_virtio_vsock through 
vdev->priv? If yes, we may still get use-after-free since it was not 
protected by RCU.

Another more interesting question, I believe we will do singleton for 
virtio_vsock structure. Then what's the point of using vdev->priv to 
access the_virtio_vsock? It looks to me we can it brings extra troubles 
for doing synchronization.

Thanks

> +	synchronize_rcu();
> +
>   	flush_work(&vsock->loopback_work);
>   	flush_work(&vsock->rx_work);
>   	flush_work(&vsock->tx_work);
> @@ -666,12 +689,10 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
>   	}
>   	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->loopback_list_lock);
>   
> -	mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> -	the_virtio_vsock = NULL;
> -	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> -
>   	vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
>   
> +	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> +
>   	kfree(vsock);
>   }
>

Stefano Garzarella

2019-Jul-03 10:41 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:> 
> On 2019/6/28 ??8:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > Some callbacks used by the upper layers can run while we are in the
> > .remove(). A potential use-after-free can happen, because we free
> > the_virtio_vsock without knowing if the callbacks are over or not.
> > 
> > To solve this issue we move the assignment of the_virtio_vsock at the
> > end of .probe(), when we finished all the initialization, and at the
> > beginning of .remove(), before to release resources.
> > For the same reason, we do the same also for the vdev->priv.
> > 
> > We use RCU to be sure that all callbacks that use the_virtio_vsock
> > ended before freeing it. This is not required for callbacks that
> > use vdev->priv, because after the vdev->config->del_vqs() we
are sure
> > that they are ended and will no longer be invoked.
> > 
> > We also take the mutex during the .remove() to avoid that .probe() can
> > run while we are resetting the device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >   net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 67
+++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > index 9c287e3e393c..7ad510ec12e0 100644
> > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > @@ -65,19 +65,22 @@ struct virtio_vsock {
> >   	u32 guest_cid;
> >   };
> > -static struct virtio_vsock *virtio_vsock_get(void)
> > -{
> > -	return the_virtio_vsock;
> > -}
> > -
> >   static u32 virtio_transport_get_local_cid(void)
> >   {
> > -	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> > +	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
> > +	u32 ret;
> > -	if (!vsock)
> > -		return VMADDR_CID_ANY;
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
> > +	if (!vsock) {
> > +		ret = VMADDR_CID_ANY;
> > +		goto out_rcu;
> > +	}
> > -	return vsock->guest_cid;
> > +	ret = vsock->guest_cid;
> > +out_rcu:
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +	return ret;
> >   }
> >   static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > @@ -197,14 +200,18 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
> >   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
> >   	int len = pkt->len;
> > -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
> >   	if (!vsock) {
> >   		virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
> > -		return -ENODEV;
> > +		len = -ENODEV;
> > +		goto out_rcu;
> >   	}
> > -	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid)
> > -		return virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
> > +	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid) {
> > +		len = virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
> > +		goto out_rcu;
> > +	}
> >   	if (pkt->reply)
> >   		atomic_inc(&vsock->queued_replies);
> > @@ -214,6 +221,9 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_pkt
*pkt)
> >   	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> >   	queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->send_pkt_work);
> > +
> > +out_rcu:
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> >   	return len;
> >   }
> > @@ -222,12 +232,14 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock
*vsk)
> >   {
> >   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
> >   	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt, *n;
> > -	int cnt = 0;
> > +	int cnt = 0, ret;
> >   	LIST_HEAD(freeme);
> > -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> > +	rcu_read_lock();
> > +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
> >   	if (!vsock) {
> > -		return -ENODEV;
> > +		ret = -ENODEV;
> > +		goto out_rcu;
> >   	}
> >   	spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
> > @@ -255,7 +267,11 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock
*vsk)
> >   			queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->rx_work);
> >   	}
> > -	return 0;
> > +	ret = 0;
> > +
> > +out_rcu:
> > +	rcu_read_unlock();
> > +	return ret;
> >   }
> >   static void virtio_vsock_rx_fill(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
> > @@ -590,8 +606,6 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
> >   	vsock->rx_buf_max_nr = 0;
> >   	atomic_set(&vsock->queued_replies, 0);
> > -	vdev->priv = vsock;
> > -	the_virtio_vsock = vsock;
> >   	mutex_init(&vsock->tx_lock);
> >   	mutex_init(&vsock->rx_lock);
> >   	mutex_init(&vsock->event_lock);
> > @@ -613,6 +627,9 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct virtio_device
*vdev)
> >   	virtio_vsock_event_fill(vsock);
> >   	mutex_unlock(&vsock->event_lock);
> > +	vdev->priv = vsock;
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, vsock);
> 
> 
> You probably need to use rcu_dereference_protected() to access
> the_virtio_vsock in the function in order to survive from sparse.
> 
Ooo, thanks!

Do you mean when we check if the_virtio_vsock is not null at the beginning of
virtio_vsock_probe()?
> 
> > +
> >   	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> >   	return 0;
> > @@ -627,6 +644,12 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct
virtio_device *vdev)
> >   	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = vdev->priv;
> >   	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt;
> > +	mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
> > +
> > +	vdev->priv = NULL;
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, NULL);
> 
> 
> This is still suspicious, can we access the_virtio_vsock through
vdev->priv?
> If yes, we may still get use-after-free since it was not protected by RCU.
We will free the object only after calling the del_vqs(), so we are sure
that the vq_callbacks ended and will no longer be invoked.
So, IIUC it shouldn't happen.
> 
> Another more interesting question, I believe we will do singleton for
> virtio_vsock structure. Then what's the point of using vdev->priv to
access
> the_virtio_vsock? It looks to me we can it brings extra troubles for doing
> synchronization.
I thought about it when I tried to use RCU to stop the worker and I
think make sense. Maybe can be another series after this will be merged.

@Stefan, what do you think about that?

Thanks,
Stefano

Jason Wang

2019-Jul-04 03:58 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

On 2019/7/3 ??6:41, Stefano Garzarella wrote:> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/6/28 ??8:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> Some callbacks used by the upper layers can run while we are in the
>>> .remove(). A potential use-after-free can happen, because we free
>>> the_virtio_vsock without knowing if the callbacks are over or not.
>>>
>>> To solve this issue we move the assignment of the_virtio_vsock at
the
>>> end of .probe(), when we finished all the initialization, and at
the
>>> beginning of .remove(), before to release resources.
>>> For the same reason, we do the same also for the vdev->priv.
>>>
>>> We use RCU to be sure that all callbacks that use the_virtio_vsock
>>> ended before freeing it. This is not required for callbacks that
>>> use vdev->priv, because after the vdev->config->del_vqs()
we are sure
>>> that they are ended and will no longer be invoked.
>>>
>>> We also take the mutex during the .remove() to avoid that .probe()
can
>>> run while we are resetting the device.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 67
+++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>>    1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> index 9c287e3e393c..7ad510ec12e0 100644
>>> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>>> @@ -65,19 +65,22 @@ struct virtio_vsock {
>>>    	u32 guest_cid;
>>>    };
>>> -static struct virtio_vsock *virtio_vsock_get(void)
>>> -{
>>> -	return the_virtio_vsock;
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>    static u32 virtio_transport_get_local_cid(void)
>>>    {
>>> -	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
>>> +	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>>> +	u32 ret;
>>> -	if (!vsock)
>>> -		return VMADDR_CID_ANY;
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
>>> +	if (!vsock) {
>>> +		ret = VMADDR_CID_ANY;
>>> +		goto out_rcu;
>>> +	}
>>> -	return vsock->guest_cid;
>>> +	ret = vsock->guest_cid;
>>> +out_rcu:
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +	return ret;
>>>    }
>>>    static void virtio_transport_loopback_work(struct work_struct
*work)
>>> @@ -197,14 +200,18 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>>>    	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>>>    	int len = pkt->len;
>>> -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
>>>    	if (!vsock) {
>>>    		virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt);
>>> -		return -ENODEV;
>>> +		len = -ENODEV;
>>> +		goto out_rcu;
>>>    	}
>>> -	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid)
>>> -		return virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
>>> +	if (le64_to_cpu(pkt->hdr.dst_cid) == vsock->guest_cid) {
>>> +		len = virtio_transport_send_pkt_loopback(vsock, pkt);
>>> +		goto out_rcu;
>>> +	}
>>>    	if (pkt->reply)
>>>    		atomic_inc(&vsock->queued_replies);
>>> @@ -214,6 +221,9 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct
virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt)
>>>    	spin_unlock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>>>    	queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue,
&vsock->send_pkt_work);
>>> +
>>> +out_rcu:
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>>    	return len;
>>>    }
>>> @@ -222,12 +232,14 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock
*vsk)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>>>    	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt, *n;
>>> -	int cnt = 0;
>>> +	int cnt = 0, ret;
>>>    	LIST_HEAD(freeme);
>>> -	vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
>>> +	rcu_read_lock();
>>> +	vsock = rcu_dereference(the_virtio_vsock);
>>>    	if (!vsock) {
>>> -		return -ENODEV;
>>> +		ret = -ENODEV;
>>> +		goto out_rcu;
>>>    	}
>>>    	spin_lock_bh(&vsock->send_pkt_list_lock);
>>> @@ -255,7 +267,11 @@ virtio_transport_cancel_pkt(struct vsock_sock
*vsk)
>>>    			queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->rx_work);
>>>    	}
>>> -	return 0;
>>> +	ret = 0;
>>> +
>>> +out_rcu:
>>> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>>> +	return ret;
>>>    }
>>>    static void virtio_vsock_rx_fill(struct virtio_vsock *vsock)
>>> @@ -590,8 +606,6 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct
virtio_device *vdev)
>>>    	vsock->rx_buf_max_nr = 0;
>>>    	atomic_set(&vsock->queued_replies, 0);
>>> -	vdev->priv = vsock;
>>> -	the_virtio_vsock = vsock;
>>>    	mutex_init(&vsock->tx_lock);
>>>    	mutex_init(&vsock->rx_lock);
>>>    	mutex_init(&vsock->event_lock);
>>> @@ -613,6 +627,9 @@ static int virtio_vsock_probe(struct
virtio_device *vdev)
>>>    	virtio_vsock_event_fill(vsock);
>>>    	mutex_unlock(&vsock->event_lock);
>>> +	vdev->priv = vsock;
>>> +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, vsock);
>>
>> You probably need to use rcu_dereference_protected() to access
>> the_virtio_vsock in the function in order to survive from sparse.
>>
> Ooo, thanks!
>
> Do you mean when we check if the_virtio_vsock is not null at the beginning
of
> virtio_vsock_probe()?

I mean instead of:

 ??? /* Only one virtio-vsock device per guest is supported */
 ??? if (the_virtio_vsock) {
 ??? ??? ret = -EBUSY;
 ??? ??? goto out;
 ??? }

you should use:

if (rcu_dereference_protected(the_virtio_vosck, 
lock_dep_is_held(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex))

...

>
>>> +
>>>    	mutex_unlock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
>>>    	return 0;
>>> @@ -627,6 +644,12 @@ static void virtio_vsock_remove(struct
virtio_device *vdev)
>>>    	struct virtio_vsock *vsock = vdev->priv;
>>>    	struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt;
>>> +	mutex_lock(&the_virtio_vsock_mutex);
>>> +
>>> +	vdev->priv = NULL;
>>> +	rcu_assign_pointer(the_virtio_vsock, NULL);
>>
>> This is still suspicious, can we access the_virtio_vsock through
vdev->priv?
>> If yes, we may still get use-after-free since it was not protected by
RCU.
> We will free the object only after calling the del_vqs(), so we are sure
> that the vq_callbacks ended and will no longer be invoked.
> So, IIUC it shouldn't happen.

Yes, but any dereference that is not done in vq_callbacks will be very 
dangerous in the future.

Thanks

>
>> Another more interesting question, I believe we will do singleton for
>> virtio_vsock structure. Then what's the point of using
vdev->priv to access
>> the_virtio_vsock? It looks to me we can it brings extra troubles for
doing
>> synchronization.
> I thought about it when I tried to use RCU to stop the worker and I
> think make sense. Maybe can be another series after this will be merged.
>
> @Stefan, what do you think about that?
>
> Thanks,
> Stefano

Stefan Hajnoczi

2019-Jul-04 10:17 UTC

head link

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:41:35PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella
wrote:> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:53:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On 2019/6/28 ??8:36, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > Another more interesting question, I believe we will do singleton for
> > virtio_vsock structure. Then what's the point of using
vdev->priv to access
> > the_virtio_vsock? It looks to me we can it brings extra troubles for
doing
> > synchronization.
> 
> I thought about it when I tried to use RCU to stop the worker and I
> think make sense. Maybe can be another series after this will be merged.
> 
> @Stefan, what do you think about that?
Yes, let's make it a singleton and keep no other references to it.

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/attachments/20190704/5b3d7169/attachment.sig>

Reasonably Related Threads

Search for more seemingly similar threads

Linux Virtualization - Jul 2019 - [PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

[PATCH v2 1/3] vsock/virtio: use RCU to avoid use-after-free on the_virtio_vsock

Reasonably Related Threads