Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: fix a race when closing irq eventfd

[Alex Williamson]

On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 12:09 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2013/2/18 12:02, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-02-18 at 11:13 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> While trying to fix a race when closing cgroup eventfd, I took a look
> >> at how kvm deals with this problem, and I found it doesn't.
> >>
> >> I may be wrong, as I don't know kvm code, so correct me if I'm.
> >>
> >> 	/*
> >> 	 * Race-free decouple logic (ordering is critical)
> >> 	 */
> >> 	static void
> >> 	irqfd_shutdown(struct work_struct *work)
> >>
> >> I don't think it's race-free!
> >>
> >> 	static int
> >> 	irqfd_wakeup(wait_queue_t *wait, unsigned mode, int sync, void *key)
> >> 	{
> >> 	...
> >> 			 * We cannot race against the irqfd going away since the
> >> 			 * other side is required to acquire wqh->lock, which we hold
> >> 			 */
> >> 			if (irqfd_is_active(irqfd))
> >> 				irqfd_deactivate(irqfd);
> >> 	}
> >>
> >> In kvm_irqfd_deassign() and kvm_irqfd_release() where irqfds are freed,
> >> wqh->lock is not acquired!
> >>
> >> So here is the race:
> >>
> >> CPU0                                    CPU1
> >> -----------------------------------     ---------------------------------
> >> kvm_irqfd_release()
> >>   spin_lock(kvm->irqfds.lock);
> >>   ...
> >>   irqfd_deactivate(irqfd);
> >>     list_del_init(&irqfd->list);
> >>   spin_unlock(kvm->irqfd.lock);
> >>   ...
> >> 					close(eventfd)
> >> 					  irqfd_wakeup();
> > 
> > irqfd_wakeup is assumed to be called with wqh->lock held
> > 
> 
> I'm aware of this.
> 
> As I said, kvm_irqfd_deassign() and kvm_irqfd_release() are not acquiring
> wqh->lock.

They do when they call eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue.  The irqfd is
enabled until that point and the list_del_init prevents multiple paths
from calling irqfd_deactivate.

> >>     irqfd_shutdown();
> > 
> > eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue has to acquire wqh->lock to complete or
> > else irqfd_shutdown never makes it to the kfree.  So in your scenario
> > this cpu0 spins here until cpu1 completes.
> > 
> >>       remove_waitqueue(irqfd->wait);
> >>       kfree(irqfd);
> >> 					    spin_lock(kvm->irqfd.lock);
> >> 					      if (!list_empty(&irqfd->list))
> > 
> > We don't take this branch because we already did list_del_init above,
> > which makes irqfd->list empty.
> > 
> 
> It doesn't matter if the list is empty or not.

Note that this is not kvm->irqfds.items, we're testing whether the
individual irqfd is detached from the list.

> The point is, irqfd has been kfreed, so the if statement is simply not safe!

It cannot be kfreed.  As noted above the cpu0 path stops trying to
acquire wqh->lock which already owned by cpu1.  The call to
eventfd_ctx_remove_wait_queue atomically removes the wait queue once the
wqh->lock is acquired, so after that point we're ok to kfree it.
Thanks,

Alex

> >> 						irqfd_deactivate(irqfd);
> >> 						  list_del_init(&irqfd->list);
> >> 					    spin_unlock(kvm->irqfd.lock);
> >>
> >> Look, we're accessing irqfd though it has already been freed!
> > 
> > Unless the irqfd_wakeup path isn't acquiring wqh->lock, it looks
> > race-free to me.  Thanks,
> > 
> > Alex
> > 
> > .
> > 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/