mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: "Dmitry Vyukov" <dvyukov@google.com>,
	"Steve Rutherford" <srutherford@google.com>,
	syzkaller <syzkaller@googlegroups.com>,
	"Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	"KVM list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kvm: use-after-free in process_srcu
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 09:53:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <84cdf3bd-e2b2-0a42-05d9-2163d3535a2f@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170117203436.GC5238@linux.vnet.ibm.com>



On 17/01/2017 21:34, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Do any of your callback functions invoke call_srcu()?  (Hey, I have to ask!)

No, we only use synchronize_srcu and synchronize_srcu_expedited, so our
only callback comes from there.

>>>> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH] srcu: wait for all callbacks before deeming SRCU "cleaned up"
>>>>
>>>> Even though there are no concurrent readers, it is possible that the
>>>> work item is queued for delayed processing when cleanup_srcu_struct is
>>>> called.  The work item needs to be flushed before returning, or a
>>>> use-after-free can ensue.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, because of SRCU's two-phase algorithm it may take up to
>>>> two executions of srcu_advance_batches before all callbacks are invoked.
>>>> This can happen if the first flush_delayed_work happens as follows
>>>>
>>>>                                                           srcu_read_lock
>>>>     process_srcu
>>>>         srcu_advance_batches
>>>>             ...
>>>>             if (!try_check_zero(sp, idx^1, trycount))
>>>>                 // there is a reader
>>>>                 return;
>>>>         srcu_invoke_callbacks
>>>>             ...
>>>>                                                           srcu_read_unlock
>>>>                                                           cleanup_srcu_struct
>>>>                                                               flush_delayed_work
>>>>         srcu_reschedule
>>>>             queue_delayed_work
>>>>
>>>> Now flush_delayed_work returns but srcu_reschedule will *not* have cleared
>>>> sp->running to false.
>
> But srcu_reschedule() sets sp->running to false if there are no callbacks.
> And at that point, there had better be no callbacks.

There must be no callbacks in batch_queue and in batch_check0, and of
course srcu_invoke_callbacks will have emptied batch_done as well.

However, I'm not sure that batch_check1 is always empty after the first
flush_delayed_work *if there's no srcu_barrier* in the caller.
srcu_advance_batches's second call to try_check_zero could have failed,
and then srcu_reschedule will requeue the work item to advance
batch_check1 into batch_done.

If this is incorrect, then one flush_delayed_work is enough.  If it is
correct, the possible alternatives are:

* srcu_barrier in the caller, flush_delayed_work+WARN_ON(sp->running) in
cleanup_srcu_struct.  I strongly dislike this one---because we don't use
call_srcu at all, there should be no reason to use srcu_barrier in KVM
code.  Plus I think all other users have the same issue.

* srcu_barrier+flush_delayed_work+WARN_ON(sp->running) in
cleanup_srcu_struct

* flush_delayed_work+flush_delayed_work+WARN_ON(sp->running) in
cleanup_srcu_struct

* while(flush_delayed_work) in cleanup_srcu_struct

* "while(sp->running) flush_delayed_work" in cleanup_srcu_struct

Paolo

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-18  8:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-11  6:46 Dmitry Vyukov
2016-12-11  8:40 ` Vegard Nossum
2016-12-11  8:49   ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-13  3:30     ` Steve Rutherford
2017-01-13  9:19       ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-15 17:11         ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-16 21:34           ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-16 21:48             ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-01-17  9:47               ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-17  9:56                 ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-17 11:08                   ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-01-17 11:13                     ` Dmitry Vyukov
2017-01-17 12:03                       ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-01-17 20:34                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-01-18  8:53                           ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2017-01-18 22:15                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2017-01-19  9:27                               ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-01-19 21:52                                 ` Paul McKenney

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=84cdf3bd-e2b2-0a42-05d9-2163d3535a2f@redhat.com \
    --to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=rkrcmar@redhat.com \
    --cc=srutherford@google.com \
    --cc=syzkaller@googlegroups.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome