Re: [PATCH v3 10/10] KVM: s390: Fix cleanup in kvm_s390_pv_create_cpu()

From: Janosch Frank

Date: Tue Jul 28 2026 - 10:18:05 EST


On 7/27/26 17:02, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
If creating a protected vCPU in kvm_s390_pv_create_cpu() fails,
kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu() was called, which checks whether the vCPU has
a PV handle and exits doing nothing otherwise. At that point, due to
not having created the protected vCPU, the PV handle will not be set,
and kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu() will do nothing, thus leaking the
allocated memory.

Fix by factoring out the code to free and reset a PV vCPU; call it from
kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu() and kvm_s390_pv_create_cpu().

Fixes: d4074324b07a ("KVM: s390: pv: avoid double free of sida page")
Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/s390/kvm/pv.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
index dc204b521052..b02e0159d3cd 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
@@ -244,6 +244,24 @@ static void kvm_s390_clear_pv_state(struct kvm *kvm)
kvm->arch.pv.stor_var = NULL;
}
+static void kvm_s390_pv_dispose_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool free_stor_base)
+{
+ if (free_stor_base)
+ free_pages(vcpu->arch.pv.stor_base, get_order(uv_info.guest_cpu_stor_len));
+ free_page((unsigned long)sida_addr(vcpu->arch.sie_block));
+ vcpu->arch.sie_block->pv_handle_cpu = 0;
+ vcpu->arch.sie_block->pv_handle_config = 0;
+ memset(&vcpu->arch.pv, 0, sizeof(vcpu->arch.pv));
+ vcpu->arch.sie_block->sdf = 0;
+ /*
+ * The sidad field (for sdf == 2) is now the gbea field (for sdf == 0).
+ * Use the reset value of gbea to avoid leaking the kernel pointer of
+ * the just freed sida.
+ */
+ vcpu->arch.sie_block->gbea = 1;
+ kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_TLB_FLUSH, vcpu);
+}
+
int kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc)
{
int cc;
@@ -258,24 +276,9 @@ int kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc)
WARN_ONCE(cc, "protvirt destroy cpu failed rc %x rrc %x", *rc, *rrc);
/* Intended memory leak for something that should never happen. */

That comment doesn't make a lot of sense anymore after your changes.