Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 30 May 2023 18:17:00 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Mike Christie <michael.christie@oracle.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+d0d442c22fa8db45ff0e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, stefanha@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [kvm?] [net?] [virt?] general protection fault in
 vhost_work_queue
Message-ID: <6p7pi6mf3db3gp3xqarap4uzrgwlzqiz7wgg5kn2ep7hvrw5pg@wxowhbw4e7w7>
References: <0000000000001777f605fce42c5f@google.com>
 <20230530072310-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CAGxU2F7O7ef3mdvNXtiC0VtWiS2DMnoiGwSR=Z6SWbzqcrBF-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGxU2F7HK5KRggiY7xnKHeXFRXJmqcKbjf3JnXC3mbmn9xqRtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <e4589879-1139-22cc-854f-fed22cc18693@oracle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e4589879-1139-22cc-854f-fed22cc18693@oracle.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:09:09AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>On 5/30/23 11:00 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>> I think it is partially related to commit 6e890c5d5021 ("vhost: use
>> vhost_tasks for worker threads") and commit 1a5f8090c6de ("vhost: move
>> worker thread fields to new struct"). Maybe that commits just
>> highlighted the issue and it was already existing.
>
>See my mail about the crash. Agree with your analysis about worker->vtsk
>not being set yet. It's a bug from my commit where I should have not set
>it so early or I should be checking for
>
>if (dev->worker && worker->vtsk)
>
>instead of
>
>if (dev->worker)

Yes, though, in my opinion the problem may persist depending on how the
instructions are reordered.

Should we protect dev->worker() with an RCU to be safe?

>
>One question about the behavior before my commit though and what we want in
>the end going forward. Before that patch we would just drop work if
>vhost_work_queue was called before VHOST_SET_OWNER. Was that correct/expected?

I think so, since we ask the guest to call VHOST_SET_OWNER, before any
other command.

>
>The call to vhost_work_queue in vhost_vsock_start was only seeing the
>works queued after VHOST_SET_OWNER. Did you want works queued before that?
>

Yes, for example if an application in the host has tried to connect and
is waiting for a timeout, we already have work queued up to flush as
soon as we start the device. (See commit 0b841030625c ("vhost: vsock:
kick send_pkt worker once device is started")).

Thanks,
Stefano