Re: [PATCH] vhost/vsock: don't check owner in vhost_vsock_stop() while releasing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:33:11PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 05:44:20PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 09:44:39PM +0530, Anirudh Rayabharam wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 02:59:30PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 12:49 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > vhost_vsock_stop() calls vhost_dev_check_owner() to check the device
> > > ownership. It expects current->mm to be valid.
> > >
> > > vhost_vsock_stop() is also called by vhost_vsock_dev_release() when
> > > the user has not done close(), so when we are in do_exit(). In this
> > > case current->mm is invalid and we're releasing the device, so we
> > > should clean it anyway.
> > >
> > > Let's check the owner only when vhost_vsock_stop() is called
> > > by an ioctl.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 433fc58e6bf2 ("VSOCK: Introduce vhost_vsock.ko")
> > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+1e3ea63db39f2b4440e0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+0abd373e2e50d704db87@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> I don't think this patch fixes "INFO: task hung in vhost_work_dev_flush"
> even though syzbot says so. I am able to reproduce the issue locally
> even with this patch applied.

Are you using the sysbot reproducer or another test?
In that case, can you share it?

I am using the syzbot reproducer.


From the stack trace it seemed to me that the worker accesses a zone that
has been cleaned (iotlb), so it is invalid and fails.

Would the thread hang in that case? How?

Looking at this log [1] it seems that the process is blocked on the wait_for_completion() in vhost_work_dev_flush().

Since we're not setting the backend to NULL to stop the worker, it's likely that the worker will keep running, preventing the flush work from completing.

[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=CrashLog&x=153f0852700000

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux