From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD8BE331A61 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2025 13:06:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765285563; cv=none; b=K1Mbr4ZAhf/OZEQ44T1av14fNVS/mM0qj3pAlqzvmEyKEzyjIpbnj+IzfEq5pUHCkXk00QQPftcUqYf6BeQXsSSSHCU2M6s/oXeLaSs/gSe17qPZEowMlnvScTl9KXNucrIVFLfwywfMuRAEIaZpzxwCeoTo9wNuqukxZRopATI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765285563; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8OpYSPc6f7O8KOMZoMzcw+MLAH+EZekjJDAjQynD8mQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=kM4SJvYMDZQMy0LySwp4p+fK2mfjeLw6F0icBOnha9jOQRjVTxV77ptHY3sAYyUrAx/mi0jAg4ACai74XixVp6/E8TdjS7OKukfAxMrIvAH8reQkpz0ZzwRSftXNNqO9zf3a/LCu0W5iB5JtXh7h+MuyLWZbEKcKhBYj7HFaCyk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=aAuKquFS; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=LCi5HFGP; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="aAuKquFS"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="LCi5HFGP" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1765285559; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=C7bt9DIhoeZ6jD2VdZvxOLbQYfNsQNZi6wdwI6g+uRA=; b=aAuKquFSznDBlYW64+YRxrVpjtx1H6MlUK0/gojFXzC5q0YF4rr2eIt+KQslQmCdNolJNz ILYByigZYfME70FFZgZB+RJxhdxsSUbWSp2GmVDc+G7Lf/UkB6MwSj5sDGxYag6w76AngH nFT2nkDrAM91S6AKyYzd2+jiymnLFTw= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-407-lvyQgW0LMFSKMP2VI-Y2-g-1; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 08:05:55 -0500 X-MC-Unique: lvyQgW0LMFSKMP2VI-Y2-g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: lvyQgW0LMFSKMP2VI-Y2-g_1765285554 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-477a0ddd1d4so32567495e9.0 for ; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 05:05:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=google; t=1765285554; x=1765890354; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=C7bt9DIhoeZ6jD2VdZvxOLbQYfNsQNZi6wdwI6g+uRA=; b=LCi5HFGP4mMudbYx5DhGs7rzLdnMbK1o+k8SosTdQc5PM5g9VdnO+f2QKrsz3N7yxY jb/iMV5fSHuLCivLkavWbDh8m/tJUuXPuwUCHv8bEc/5KlEl9zCJwdAmmRmP6ylVyDlZ miLRZ9PWu1ldk0xw70QGuV5cGhf+7E3lFfMTSiOiZ6Th/2R/5jekURdkNSq6ztwoqrqO xb/lmtIX0N9xfUSBC2sF1mwYk26OGOSHhGyuCpmOXXr5PIFG7TkT+VXb+et6kdXf/Aal XtOOGZOllHCchSwR1AKY949MCZaqX2W299b+SlvVE3j3KeJ3ZhI1kHnAHsF7bQlPoGZt vmyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1765285554; x=1765890354; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=C7bt9DIhoeZ6jD2VdZvxOLbQYfNsQNZi6wdwI6g+uRA=; b=moiYOdBdAQwV/GYC9ovAF4o052wcnfxif6Bft0fyJepMVtz7tbyOSMVKngp5Wj3tZg tMn/4+S2EAPqJtSRbn/BEF2RiTS8Nibaz7H2uP6fATNMA5KsEgA/C6vEQ5jINt2RXuHf cWWmlX1sm4IvtCN10U481fU5BpKUj0VEPMwO8cAqKinsorrv/gSAOild8wu7/BJMQGgG Fse+4fV3Q0BdGIrFN/bQNY8WXlYXlgBTp411CKsatd+FUymgzpm0RYeOjAjparSFdGKE nRGhN256JgcLbBOEYemgz+/sD2izNWRJQe3rrr4SEOKR1yMa/f/5FRnH7G2qlmCj4f1h QOhQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV54H0bVQ4QvLYxvyEVMRWYR0YfOvlNtBV0hJaX2BD642fl2/8wSTgH53dI2T51aFUYnwI=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxf651fU/9IpTo3kVpjapEuAvEsBHhdPpKv2AnLMj1cPm1cFO+E d1Qq3mlsRT0PEx7GwZwWcQqeMOT/iFuFV8HI/UxMXo22GvABplVbUxugvcegXJehKQtpRkDzNcD lalhhSJP8bpmnZQXkzdDrRSHO1ch6evwBkqJhQkZBgZ1B6VqKFn2MGg== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsyWWW2Nwfvs8STRCAuOtkh/4AEJKxMf3l0VvrEoPlqq/dqEehWe8KJhlVoihL BHCUUdS3Y3sIbNgc1xk6rNrEypTBLZGfwmYUr96skZ6gla1S0CfWLdp/Wu73DT80n2gkcVaoFt1 hKBQ1+7s5WjF8TWmxsBdU6JtbVc5TgvMToXu8TJPgm+jv3VPsWw3XHEaU6HEEaFFML5URYEqOBe TXRHz9HVsrZSwcmhSbkr+jI0tFYUKoe/R8aZMTeyldb+1ybJSbLRcs0qR7bbonNw5/DrVFoarRE A9mdBKbPzvoGKzWol+4uOdjygz73tfH2sAakJiCQF9J5OP1zaZA694Qe/+njKnNzrYP29Ne/Usv 8XZrfnbWWCCbSPt5HkXQjEhSJBO9vKzr7iQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c1b:b0:477:b734:8c53 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47939dfa09fmr106050935e9.12.1765285554110; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 05:05:54 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHuQABtiUkLD+rMxYkpHCMPJ0jWGiDwWoX4yNSI50FHhHBBQ+qu1qOfQtW9LU1ZqHfufP6qYw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1c1b:b0:477:b734:8c53 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-47939dfa09fmr106050485e9.12.1765285553476; Tue, 09 Dec 2025 05:05:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from redhat.com (IGLD-80-230-38-228.inter.net.il. [80.230.38.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-47a7d357820sm17802735e9.2.2025.12.09.05.05.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 09 Dec 2025 05:05:52 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2025 08:05:50 -0500 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Stefano Garzarella Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev, Jason Wang , Eugenio =?iso-8859-1?Q?P=E9rez?= , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost/vsock: improve RCU read sections around vhost_vsock_get() Message-ID: <20251209080528-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20251126133826.142496-1-sgarzare@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251126133826.142496-1-sgarzare@redhat.com> On Wed, Nov 26, 2025 at 02:38:26PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > From: Stefano Garzarella > > vhost_vsock_get() uses hash_for_each_possible_rcu() to find the > `vhost_vsock` associated with the `guest_cid`. hash_for_each_possible_rcu() > should only be called within an RCU read section, as mentioned in the > following comment in include/linux/rculist.h: > > /** > * hlist_for_each_entry_rcu - iterate over rcu list of given type > * @pos: the type * to use as a loop cursor. > * @head: the head for your list. > * @member: the name of the hlist_node within the struct. > * @cond: optional lockdep expression if called from non-RCU protection. > * > * This list-traversal primitive may safely run concurrently with > * the _rcu list-mutation primitives such as hlist_add_head_rcu() > * as long as the traversal is guarded by rcu_read_lock(). > */ > > Currently, all calls to vhost_vsock_get() are between rcu_read_lock() > and rcu_read_unlock() except for calls in vhost_vsock_set_cid() and > vhost_vsock_reset_orphans(). In both cases, the current code is safe, > but we can make improvements to make it more robust. > > About vhost_vsock_set_cid(), when building the kernel with > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST enabled, we get the following RCU warning when the > user space issues `ioctl(dev, VHOST_VSOCK_SET_GUEST_CID, ...)` : > > WARNING: suspicious RCU usage > 6.18.0-rc7 #62 Not tainted > ----------------------------- > drivers/vhost/vsock.c:74 RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!! > > other info that might help us debug this: > > rcu_scheduler_active = 2, debug_locks = 1 > 1 lock held by rpc-libvirtd/3443: > #0: ffffffffc05032a8 (vhost_vsock_mutex){+.+.}-{4:4}, at: vhost_vsock_dev_ioctl+0x2ff/0x530 [vhost_vsock] > > stack backtrace: > CPU: 2 UID: 0 PID: 3443 Comm: rpc-libvirtd Not tainted 6.18.0-rc7 #62 PREEMPT(none) > Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.17.0-7.fc42 06/10/2025 > Call Trace: > > dump_stack_lvl+0x75/0xb0 > dump_stack+0x14/0x1a > lockdep_rcu_suspicious.cold+0x4e/0x97 > vhost_vsock_get+0x8f/0xa0 [vhost_vsock] > vhost_vsock_dev_ioctl+0x307/0x530 [vhost_vsock] > __x64_sys_ioctl+0x4f2/0xa00 > x64_sys_call+0xed0/0x1da0 > do_syscall_64+0x73/0xfa0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e > ... > > > This is not a real problem, because the vhost_vsock_get() caller, i.e. > vhost_vsock_set_cid(), holds the `vhost_vsock_mutex` used by the hash > table writers. Anyway, to prevent that warning, add lockdep_is_held() > condition to hash_for_each_possible_rcu() to verify that either the > caller is in an RCU read section or `vhost_vsock_mutex` is held when > CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_LIST is enabled; and also clarify the comment for > vhost_vsock_get() to better describe the locking requirements and the > scope of the returned pointer validity. > > About vhost_vsock_reset_orphans(), currently this function is only > called via vsock_for_each_connected_socket(), which holds the > `vsock_table_lock` spinlock (which is also an RCU read-side critical > section). However, add an explicit RCU read lock there to make the code > more robust and explicit about the RCU requirements, and to prevent > issues if the calling context changes in the future or if > vhost_vsock_reset_orphans() is called from other contexts. > > Fixes: 834e772c8db0 ("vhost/vsock: fix use-after-free in network stack callers") > Cc: stefanha@redhat.com > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella queued, thanks! > --- > drivers/vhost/vsock.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > index ae01457ea2cd..78cc66fbb3dd 100644 > --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c > @@ -64,14 +64,15 @@ static u32 vhost_transport_get_local_cid(void) > return VHOST_VSOCK_DEFAULT_HOST_CID; > } > > -/* Callers that dereference the return value must hold vhost_vsock_mutex or the > - * RCU read lock. > +/* Callers must be in an RCU read section or hold the vhost_vsock_mutex. > + * The return value can only be dereferenced while within the section. > */ > static struct vhost_vsock *vhost_vsock_get(u32 guest_cid) > { > struct vhost_vsock *vsock; > > - hash_for_each_possible_rcu(vhost_vsock_hash, vsock, hash, guest_cid) { > + hash_for_each_possible_rcu(vhost_vsock_hash, vsock, hash, guest_cid, > + lockdep_is_held(&vhost_vsock_mutex)) { > u32 other_cid = vsock->guest_cid; > > /* Skip instances that have no CID yet */ > @@ -707,9 +708,15 @@ static void vhost_vsock_reset_orphans(struct sock *sk) > * executing. > */ > > + rcu_read_lock(); > + > /* If the peer is still valid, no need to reset connection */ > - if (vhost_vsock_get(vsk->remote_addr.svm_cid)) > + if (vhost_vsock_get(vsk->remote_addr.svm_cid)) { > + rcu_read_unlock(); > return; > + } > + > + rcu_read_unlock(); > > /* If the close timeout is pending, let it expire. This avoids races > * with the timeout callback. > -- > 2.51.1