From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Anthony Krowiak" <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.vom>,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix stale do_remove flag across iterations in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:22:34 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260812172235.07A501F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260812170945.738351-2-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 4 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Unchecked dereference of `matrix_mdev->kvm` in `vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove` and `vfio_ap_mdev_hot_plug_cfg` leading to a kernel panic for mediated devices not attached to a KVM guest.
- [High] Control domain hot unplug in `vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove()` is completely broken due to incorrect use of `bitmap_andnot` instead of `bitmap_and`.
- [High] Unsafe iteration over `matrix_dev->mdev_list` in `vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove` without holding `matrix_dev->mdevs_lock`, risking a data race.
- [High] Unsupported older AP adapters (pre-CEX4) can bypass filtering in `vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_add` if no new domains are added simultaneously.
--
--- Patch [1]: [PATCH v4 1/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix stale do_remove flag across iterations in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove ---
commit 842cc8fca6dcd2512ea1bac051db5a235987ced0
Author: Anthony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.ibm.com>
s390/vfio-ap: Fix stale do_remove flag across iterations in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove
This commit fixes the initialization and accumulation of the do_remove flag
in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove(). Previously, the flag was never reset per
iteration, causing a positive result to carry over to subsequent matrix mdevs.
The fix sets the flag using bitmap_and() for the first check rather than
accumulating it.
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> index 44b3a1dcc1b36..845c86ba8bc30 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> @@ -2603,15 +2603,15 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove(unsigned long *ap_remove,
> DECLARE_BITMAP(aprem, AP_DEVICES);
> DECLARE_BITMAP(aqrem, AP_DOMAINS);
> DECLARE_BITMAP(cdrem, AP_DOMAINS);
> - int do_remove = 0;
> + int do_remove;
>
> list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) {
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is it safe to iterate over
matrix_dev->mdev_list here without holding matrix_dev->mdevs_lock?
The caller vfio_ap_on_cfg_changed() holds matrix_dev->guests_lock, but not
matrix_dev->mdevs_lock. Since mdevs_lock is acquired inside the loop and
released before the next iteration, concurrent modifications might corrupt
the list traversal if new mdevs are added in vfio_ap_mdev_probe() holding
only mdevs_lock.
> mutex_lock(&matrix_mdev->kvm->lock);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this code unconditionally dereference
matrix_mdev->kvm without checking for null?
If a mediated device is created but not yet attached to a kvm guest,
matrix_mdev->kvm remains initialized to null. If a host ap configuration
change occurs in this state, wouldn't this cause a kernel panic?
The same unconditional dereference appears to exist in
vfio_ap_mdev_hot_plug_cfg() when called from vfio_ap_on_cfg_changed().
> mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock);
>
> - do_remove |= bitmap_and(aprem, ap_remove,
> - matrix_mdev->matrix.apm,
> - AP_DEVICES);
> + do_remove = bitmap_and(aprem, ap_remove,
> + matrix_mdev->matrix.apm,
> + AP_DEVICES);
> do_remove |= bitmap_and(aqrem, aq_remove,
> matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm,
> AP_DOMAINS);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but looking at the next lines in
vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove():
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c:vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove() {
...
do_remove |= bitmap_andnot(cdrem, cd_remove,
matrix_mdev->matrix.adm,
AP_DOMAINS);
...
}
Is it correct to use bitmap_andnot() here instead of bitmap_and()?
This computes cd_remove & ~matrix_mdev->matrix.adm, yielding domains that
were removed from the host but are explicitly not assigned to the mdev.
Later, vfio_ap_mdev_hot_unplug_cfg() checks for intersection between the
guest's active domains and cdrem, which will always fail. Should this be
bitmap_and() instead?
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is it possible for unsupported
older ap adapters to bypass filtering?
In vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_add(), the code calls:
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c:vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_add() {
...
vfio_ap_filter_apid_by_qtype(apm_add, aqm_add);
...
}
If an older adapter is added to the host configuration without any
new domains being added simultaneously (because the domains were already
present), aqm_add will be empty.
This causes the inner loop in vfio_ap_filter_apid_by_qtype() to be skipped:
drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c:vfio_ap_filter_apid_by_qtype() {
...
for_each_set_bit_inv(apqi, aqm, AP_DOMAINS) {
status = ap_test_queue(AP_MKQID(apid, apqi), 1, &info);
...
}
Because aqm is empty, the loop evaluating adapter type does not execute,
meaning the adapter's type is never verified and it remains in apm_add.
Should the active domains be passed to the filter instead of the delta?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260812170945.738351-1-akrowiak@linux.ibm.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-12 17:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-12 17:09 [PATCH v4 0/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix bugs in vfio_ap device driver callback functions Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 1/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix stale do_remove flag across iterations in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:22 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 2/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix dereference matrix_mdev->kvm without checking for NULL Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 3/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix missing lock required to access list of ap_matrix_mdev objects Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 18:25 ` Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 4/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix required lock not held during update of ap_matrix_mdev object Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 5/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix control domain removal in vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_remove Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:19 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 6/9] s390/vfio-ap: fix potential use of uninitialized apm_filtered bitmap Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:17 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 7/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix hot-unplug skipped when last AP adapter or domain removed Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:24 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 8/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix NULL deref in status_show() during queue probe Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:27 ` sashiko-bot
2026-08-12 17:58 ` Matthew Rosato
2026-08-12 18:16 ` Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 18:56 ` Matthew Rosato
2026-08-12 17:09 ` [PATCH v4 9/9] s390/vfio-ap: Fix memory leak when queue removed from host AP config Anthony Krowiak
2026-08-12 17:38 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260812172235.07A501F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akrowiak@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.vom \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox