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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Fixes: 16320f363ae1 ("vhost-vsock: add pkt cancel capability")
> > > Fixes: 433fc58e6bf2 ("VSOCK: Introduce vhost_vsock.ko")
> > > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 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
