Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:50:24 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     stefanha@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V2] vhost-vsock: fix use after free
Message-ID: <20180927194734-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20180927122204.4188-1-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20180927123539-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <588ed28b-7e4b-9dc8-92ce-d75692836c9e@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <588ed28b-7e4b-9dc8-92ce-d75692836c9e@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 07:37:37AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年09月28日 01:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:22:04PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > The access of vsock is not protected by vhost_vsock_lock. This may
> > > lead to use after free since vhost_vsock_dev_release() may free the
> > > pointer at the same time.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by holding the lock during the access.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by:syzbot+e3e074963495f92a89ed@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Fixes: 16320f363ae1 ("vhost-vsock: add pkt cancel capability")
> > > Fixes: 433fc58e6bf2 ("VSOCK: Introduce vhost_vsock.ko")
> > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@redhat.com>
> > Wow is that really the best we can do?
> 
> For net/stable, probably yes.
> 
> >   A global lock on a data path
> > operation?
> 
> It's already there,

&vhost_vsock_lock? were is it takes on data path?

> and the patch only increase the critical section.
> 
> >   Granted use after free is nasty but Stefan said he sees
> > a way to fix it using a per socket refcount. He's on vacation
> > until Oct 4 though ...
> > 
> 
> Stefan has acked the pacth, so I think it's ok? We can do optimization for
> -next on top.
> 
> Thanks


Well on high SMP serializing can drop performance as much as x100 so I'm
not sure it's appropriate - seems to fix a bug but can introduce a
regression. Let's see how does a proper fix look first?

-- 
MST