On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 03:08:31PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 05:30:01PM -0700, Jorge E. Moreira wrote:
> > Avoid a race in which static variables in net/vmw_vsock/af_vsock.c are
> > accessed (while handling interrupts) before they are initialized.
> >
> >
> > [ 4.201410] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffffffffffe8
> > [ 4.207829] IP: vsock_addr_equals_addr+0x3/0x20
> > [ 4.211379] PGD 28210067 P4D 28210067 PUD 28212067 PMD 0
> > [ 4.211379] Oops: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP PTI
> > [ 4.211379] Modules linked in:
> > [ 4.211379] CPU: 1 PID: 30 Comm: kworker/1:1 Not tainted 4.14.106-419297-gd7e28cc1f241 #1
> > [ 4.211379] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.10.2-1 04/01/2014
> > [ 4.211379] Workqueue: virtio_vsock virtio_transport_rx_work
> > [ 4.211379] task: ffffa3273d175280 task.stack: ffffaea1800e8000
> > [ 4.211379] RIP: 0010:vsock_addr_equals_addr+0x3/0x20
> > [ 4.211379] RSP: 0000:ffffaea1800ebd28 EFLAGS: 00010286
> > [ 4.211379] RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffffffffb94e42f0
> > [ 4.211379] RDX: 0000000000000400 RSI: ffffffffffffffe0 RDI: ffffaea1800ebdd0
> > [ 4.211379] RBP: ffffaea1800ebd58 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: 0000000000000001
> > [ 4.211379] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ffffffffb89d5d60 R12: ffffaea1800ebdd0
> > [ 4.211379] R13: 00000000828cbfbf R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffaea1800ebdc0
> > [ 4.211379] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffa3273fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [ 4.211379] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [ 4.211379] CR2: ffffffffffffffe8 CR3: 000000002820e001 CR4: 00000000001606e0
> > [ 4.211379] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > [ 4.211379] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > [ 4.211379] Call Trace:
> > [ 4.211379] ? vsock_find_connected_socket+0x6c/0xe0
> > [ 4.211379] virtio_transport_recv_pkt+0x15f/0x740
> > [ 4.211379] ? detach_buf+0x1b5/0x210
> > [ 4.211379] virtio_transport_rx_work+0xb7/0x140
> > [ 4.211379] process_one_work+0x1ef/0x480
> > [ 4.211379] worker_thread+0x312/0x460
> > [ 4.211379] kthread+0x132/0x140
> > [ 4.211379] ? process_one_work+0x480/0x480
> > [ 4.211379] ? kthread_destroy_worker+0xd0/0xd0
> > [ 4.211379] ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> > [ 4.211379] Code: c7 47 08 00 00 00 00 66 c7 07 28 00 c7 47 08 ff ff ff ff c7 47 04 ff ff ff ff c3 0f 1f 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 8b 47 08 <3b> 46 08 75 0a 8b 47 04 3b 46 04 0f 94 c0 c3 31 c0 c3 90 66 2e
> > [ 4.211379] RIP: vsock_addr_equals_addr+0x3/0x20 RSP: ffffaea1800ebd28
> > [ 4.211379] CR2: ffffffffffffffe8
> > [ 4.211379] ---[ end trace f31cc4a2e6df3689 ]---
> > [ 4.211379] Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal exception in interrupt
> > [ 4.211379] Kernel Offset: 0x37000000 from 0xffffffff81000000 (relocation range: 0xffffffff80000000-0xffffffffbfffffff)
> > [ 4.211379] Rebooting in 5 seconds..
> >
> > Fixes: 22b5c0b63f32 ("vsock/virtio: fix kernel panic after device hot-unplug")
> > Cc: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [4.9+]
> > Signed-off-by: Jorge E. Moreira <jemoreira@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 13 ++++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > index 15eb5d3d4750..96ab344f17bb 100644
> > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > @@ -702,28 +702,27 @@ static int __init virtio_vsock_init(void)
> > if (!virtio_vsock_workqueue)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > - ret = register_virtio_driver(&virtio_vsock_driver);
> > + ret = vsock_core_init(&virtio_transport.transport);
>
> Have you checked that all transport callbacks are safe even if another
> CPU calls them while virtio_vsock_probe() is executing on another CPU?
>
I have the same doubt.
What do you think to take the 'the_virtio_vsock_mutex' in the
virtio_vsock_init(), keeping the previous order?
This should prevent this issue because the virtio_vsock_probe() remains
blocked in the mutex until the end of vsock_core_init().
Cheers,
Stefano
