Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390/vfio-ap: fix memory leak in mdev remove callback
To:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
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 <akrowiak@stny.rr.com>
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>
From:   Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <00c86767-ce8b-7050-f665-75f33fabe118@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 May 2021 14:14:03 -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: <494af62b-dc9a-ef2c-1869-d8f5ed239504@de.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


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 <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com> 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.
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.