Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-Mar-02 16:30 UTC
[PATCH 1/1] vhost: Protect the virtqueue from being cleared whilst still in use
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:28:31PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:57 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 01:56:35PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:54:21AM +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 is take the same lock > > > > > > during virtqueue clean-up and we mitigate the reported issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=279432d30d825e63ba00 > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859 at syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 2 ++ > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > index 59edb5a1ffe28..bbaff6a5e21b8 100644 > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > @@ -693,6 +693,7 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev) > > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) { > > > > > > + 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 +701,7 @@ 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); > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > So this is a mitigation plan but the bug is still there though > > > > > we don't know exactly what it is. I would prefer adding something like > > > > > WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(vqs[i]->mutex) here - does this make sense? > > > > > > > > As a rework to this, or as a subsequent patch? > > > > > > Can be a separate patch. > > > > > > > Just before the first lock I assume? > > > > > > I guess so, yes. > > > > No problem. Patch to follow. > > > > I'm also going to attempt to debug the root cause, but I'm new to this > > subsystem to it might take a while for me to get my head around. > > IIUC the root cause should be the same as the one we solved here: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a58da53ffd70294ebea8ecd0eb45fd0d74add9f9 > > The worker was not stopped before calling vhost_dev_cleanup(). So while > the worker was still running we were going to free memory or initialize > fields while it was still using virtqueue. > > Cheers, > StefanoRight, and I agree but it's not the root though, we do attempt to stop all workers. -- MST
Lee Jones
2022-Mar-02 16:49 UTC
[PATCH 1/1] vhost: Protect the virtqueue from being cleared whilst still in use
On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:> On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 05:28:31PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 3:57 PM Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 01:56:35PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 02 Mar 2022, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 07:54:21AM +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 is take the same lock > > > > > > > during virtqueue clean-up and we mitigate the reported issues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=279432d30d825e63ba00 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: <stable at vger.kernel.org> > > > > > > > Reported-by: syzbot+adc3cb32385586bec859 at syzkaller.appspotmail.com > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones at linaro.org> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 2 ++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > index 59edb5a1ffe28..bbaff6a5e21b8 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c > > > > > > > @@ -693,6 +693,7 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev) > > > > > > > int i; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) { > > > > > > > + 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 +701,7 @@ 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); > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > So this is a mitigation plan but the bug is still there though > > > > > > we don't know exactly what it is. I would prefer adding something like > > > > > > WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(vqs[i]->mutex) here - does this make sense? > > > > > > > > > > As a rework to this, or as a subsequent patch? > > > > > > > > Can be a separate patch. > > > > > > > > > Just before the first lock I assume? > > > > > > > > I guess so, yes. > > > > > > No problem. Patch to follow. > > > > > > I'm also going to attempt to debug the root cause, but I'm new to this > > > subsystem to it might take a while for me to get my head around. > > > > IIUC the root cause should be the same as the one we solved here: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a58da53ffd70294ebea8ecd0eb45fd0d74add9f9 > > > > The worker was not stopped before calling vhost_dev_cleanup(). So while > > the worker was still running we were going to free memory or initialize > > fields while it was still using virtqueue. > > Right, and I agree but it's not the root though, we do attempt to stop all workers.Exactly. This is what happens, but the question I'm going to attempt to answer is *why* does this happen. -- Lee Jones [???] Principal Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org ? Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog