On Wed, Jul 31, 2024 at 09:18:56AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2024, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> > On 7/31/24 15:31, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 04:31:08PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024, Michal Luczaj wrote:
> > >>> On 7/30/24 17:56, Will Deacon wrote:
> > >>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > >>>> index d0788d0a72cc..b80dd8cead8c 100644
> > >>>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > >>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> > >>>> @@ -4293,7 +4293,7 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long id)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> if (KVM_BUG_ON(xa_store(&kvm->vcpu_array, vcpu->vcpu_idx, vcpu, 0), kvm)) {
> > >>>> r = -EINVAL;
> > >>>> - goto kvm_put_xa_release;
> > >>>> + goto err_xa_release;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> /*
> > >>>> @@ -4310,6 +4310,7 @@ static int kvm_vm_ioctl_create_vcpu(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long id)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> kvm_put_xa_release:
> > >>>> kvm_put_kvm_no_destroy(kvm);
> > >>>> +err_xa_release:
> > >>>> xa_release(&kvm->vcpu_array, vcpu->vcpu_idx);
> > >>>> unlock_vcpu_destroy:
> > >>>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> > >>>
> > >>> My bad for neglecting the "impossible" path. Thanks for the fix.
> > >>>
> > >>> I wonder if it's complete. If we really want to consider the possibility of
> > >>> this xa_store() failing, then keeping vCPU fd installed and calling
> > >>> kmem_cache_free(kvm_vcpu_cache, vcpu) on the error path looks wrong.
> > >>
> > >> Yeah, the vCPU is exposed to userspace, freeing its assets will just cause
> > >> different problems. KVM_BUG_ON() will prevent _new_ vCPU ioctl() calls (and kick
> > >> running vCPUs out of the guest), but it doesn't interrupt other CPUs, e.g. if
> > >> userspace is being sneaking and has already invoked a vCPU ioctl(), KVM will hit
> > >> a use-after-free (several of them).
> > >
> > > Damn, yes. Just because we haven't returned the fd yet, doesn't mean
> > > userspace can't make use of it.
> > >
> > >> As Michal alluded to, it should be impossible for xa_store() to fail since KVM
> > >> pre-allocates/reserves memory. Given that, deliberately leaking the vCPU seems
> > >> like the least awful "solution".
> > >
> > > Could we actually just move the xa_store() before the fd creation? I
> > > can't immediately see any issues with that...
> >
> > Hah, please see commit afb2acb2e3a3 :) Long story short: create_vcpu_fd()
> > can legally fail, which must be handled gracefully, which would involve
> > destruction of an already xa_store()ed vCPU, which is racy.
>
> Ya, the basic problem is that we have two ways of publishing the vCPU, fd and
> vcpu_array, with no way of setting both atomically. Given that xa_store() should
> never fail, I vote we do the simple thing and deliberately leak the memory.
I'm inclined to agree. This conversation did momentarily get me worried
about the window between the successful create_vcpu_fd() and the
xa_store(), but it looks like 'kvm->online_vcpus' protects that.
I'll spin a v2 leaking the vCPU, then.
Will
