Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Add a return code and check kvm_page_track_init
From: Sean Christopherson
Date: Tue Aug 31 2021 - 10:50:20 EST
For the shortlog, describe what is being fixed instead of the literal code change,
otherwise the shortlog doesn't help explain _why_ a change is being made.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, tcs.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> We found a null pointer deref by our modified syzkaller.
> KASAN: null-ptr-deref in range [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000007]
> CPU: 1 PID: 13993 Comm: syz-executor.0 Kdump: loaded Tainted:
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996),
> BIOS rel-1.12.0-59-gc9ba5276e321-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
> RIP: 0010:rcu_segcblist_enqueue+0xf5/0x1d0
> RSP: 0018:ffffc90001e1fc10 EFLAGS: 00010046
> RAX: dffffc0000000000 RBX: ffff888135c00080 RCX: ffffffff815ba8a1
> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffc90001e1fd00 RDI: ffff888135c00080
> RBP: ffff888135c000a0 R08: 0000000000000004 R09: fffff520003c3f75
> R10: 0000000000000003 R11: fffff520003c3f75 R12: 0000000000000000
> R13: ffff888135c00080 R14: ffff888135c00040 R15: 0000000000000000
> FS: 00007fecc99f1700(0000) GS:ffff888135c00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 0000001b2f225000 CR3: 0000000093d08000 CR4: 0000000000750ee0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> PKRU: 55555554
> Call Trace:
> srcu_gp_start_if_needed+0x158/0xc60 build/../kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:823
> __synchronize_srcu+0x1dc/0x250 build/../kernel/rcu/srcutree.c:929
> kvm_mmu_uninit_vm+0x18/0x30 build/../arch/x86/kvm/mmu/mmu.c:5585
> kvm_arch_destroy_vm+0x43f/0x5c0 build/../arch/x86/kvm/x86.c:11277
> kvm_create_vm build/../arch/x86/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main.c:1060
> kvm_dev_ioctl_create_vm build/../arch/x86/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main
> kvm_dev_ioctl+0xdfb/0x1860 build/../arch/x86/kvm/../../../virt/kvm/kvm_main
> vfs_ioctl build/../fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline]
> __do_sys_ioctl build/../fs/ioctl.c:1069 [inline]
> __se_sys_ioctl build/../fs/ioctl.c:1055 [inline]
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x183/0x210 build/../fs/ioctl.c:1055
> do_syscall_x64 build/../arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> do_syscall_64+0x34/0xb0 build/../arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
Newline here to make it easier to differentiate between the splat and the
explanation. Though I would say hoist the explanation of the "why" to the top, e.g.
KVM: x86: Handle SRCU initialization failure during page track init
Check the return of init_srcu_struct(), which can fail due to OOM, when
initializing the page track mechanism. Lack of checking leads to a NULL
pointer deref found by a modified syzkaller.
<splat goes here>
> This is because when init_srcu_struct() calls alloc_percpu(struct
> srcu_data) failed, kvm_page_track_init() didn't check init_srcu_struct
> return code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Haimin Zhang <tcs_kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reported-by: TCS Robot <tcs_robot@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h | 2 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c | 8 ++++++--
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 7 +++++--
> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> index 87bd6025d91d..6a5f3acf2b33 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_page_track.h
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ struct kvm_page_track_notifier_node {
> struct kvm_page_track_notifier_node *node);
> };
>
> -void kvm_page_track_init(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int kvm_page_track_init(struct kvm *kvm);
> void kvm_page_track_cleanup(struct kvm *kvm);
>
> void kvm_page_track_free_memslot(struct kvm_memory_slot *slot);
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> index 91a9f7e0fd91..44a67a50f6d2 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/mmu/page_track.c
> @@ -163,13 +163,17 @@ void kvm_page_track_cleanup(struct kvm *kvm)
> cleanup_srcu_struct(&head->track_srcu);
> }
>
> -void kvm_page_track_init(struct kvm *kvm)
> +int kvm_page_track_init(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> + int r = -ENOMEM;
Unnecessary initialization.
> struct kvm_page_track_notifier_head *head;
>
> head = &kvm->arch.track_notifier_head;
> - init_srcu_struct(&head->track_srcu);
> + r = init_srcu_struct(&head->track_srcu);
> + if (r)
> + return r;
> INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&head->track_notifier_list);
> + return r;
Just do "return 0", which is guaranteed by the above. Or even better, I would
vote for returning init_srcu_struct() directly, the ordering doesn't matter and
obviously failure is a very rare occurence.
@@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ void kvm_page_track_init(struct kvm *kvm)
struct kvm_page_track_notifier_head *head;
head = &kvm->arch.track_notifier_head;
- init_srcu_struct(&head->track_srcu);
INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&head->track_notifier_list);
+ return init_srcu_struct(&head->track_srcu);
}
> }
>
> /*
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index e5d5c5ed7dd4..5da76f989207 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -11086,8 +11086,9 @@ void kvm_arch_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>
> int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> {
> + int r = -EINVAL;
Unnecessary initialization.
> if (type)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return r;
Unrelated and unnecessary change.
>
> INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.mask_notifier_list);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&kvm->arch.active_mmu_pages);
> @@ -11121,7 +11122,9 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>
> kvm_apicv_init(kvm);
> kvm_hv_init_vm(kvm);
> - kvm_page_track_init(kvm);
> + r = kvm_page_track_init(kvm);
> + if (r)
> + return r;
Hmm, so I don't see anything above this that needs to be unwound, but I'm still
worried this will be hard to audit/maintain.
As an alternative "fix", about dropping kvm->arch.track_notifier_head.track_srcu
and using kvm->srcu? kvm_page_track_write() pretty much _has_ to hold that since
the caller is writing guest memory, and conversely kvm_page_track_flush_slot()
_can't_ hold it because the caller is modifying memslots and thus would deadlock
if it held kvm->srcu for read. In other words, kvm_page_track_write() can rely
(assert?) on vcpu->srcu_idx, and kvm_page_track_flush_slot() can take and release
kvm->srcu.
Practially speaking, (Un)Registering is going to happen only at VM creation so
waiting all kvm->srcu readers instead of just page track readers should not be a
problem.
> kvm_mmu_init_vm(kvm);
>
> return static_call(kvm_x86_vm_init)(kvm);
> --
> 2.27.0
>