Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] PCI: s390: Fix use-after-free of PCI resources with per-function hotplug

[Matthew Rosato]

On 3/6/23 10:10 AM, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On s390 PCI functions may be hotplugged individually even when they
> belong to a multi-function device. In particular on an SR-IOV device VFs
> may be removed and later re-added.
> 
> In commit a50297cf8235 ("s390/pci: separate zbus creation from
> scanning") it was missed however that struct pci_bus and struct
> zpci_bus's resource list retained a reference to the PCI functions MMIO
> resources even though those resources are released and freed on
> hot-unplug. These stale resources may subsequently be claimed when the
> PCI function re-appears resulting in use-after-free.
> 
> One idea of fixing this use-after-free in s390 specific code that was
> investigated was to simply keep resources around from the moment a PCI
> function first appeared until the whole virtual PCI bus created for
> a multi-function device disappears. The problem with this however is
> that due to the requirement of artificial MMIO addreesses (address
> cookies) extra logic is then needed to keep the address cookies
> compatible on re-plug. At the same time the MMIO resources semantically
> belong to the PCI function so tying their lifecycle to the function
> seems more logical.
> 
> Instead a simpler approach is to remove the resources of an individually
> hot-unplugged PCI function from the PCI bus's resource list while
> keeping the resources of other PCI functions on the PCI bus untouched.
> 
> This is done by introducing pci_bus_remove_resource() to remove an
> individual resource. Similarly the resource also needs to be removed
> from the struct zpci_bus's resource list. It turns out however, that
> there is really no need to add the MMIO resources to the struct
> zpci_bus's resource list at all and instead we can simply use the
> zpci_bar_struct's resource pointer directly.
> 
> Fixes: a50297cf8235 ("s390/pci: separate zbus creation from scanning")
> Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>