From: Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>
To: sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Handle race between interrupt affinity change and LPI disabling
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 11:51:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ajGbLXf8Yc67cSI9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260615183314.65A571F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org>
On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 06:33:14PM +0000, sashiko-bot@kernel.org wrote:
> > @@ -795,7 +796,11 @@ static void vgic_prune_ap_list(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > continue;
> > }
> >
> > - /* This interrupt looks like it has to be migrated. */
> > + /*
> > + * This interrupt looks like it has to be migrated,
> > + * make sure it is kept alive while locks are dropped.
> > + */
> > + vgic_get_irq_ref(irq);
>
> [Severity: Critical]
> This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but could the lock-dropping window
> here lead to a double list_del() and a use-after-free under certain race
> conditions?
>
> When vgic_prune_ap_list() drops the irq and ap_list locks shortly after this
> reference is taken, another thread could concurrently execute
> vgic_flush_pending_lpis() above and remove the irq from the list.
>
> If a third thread then concurrently injects the same LPI before the locks are
> reacquired, the irq_lock is taken and pending_latch is set to true again.
>
> When vgic_prune_ap_list() reacquires the locks further down in the function,
> the target_vcpu oracle check will pass because the interrupt is pending again:
>
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic.c:vgic_prune_ap_list() {
> ...
> if (target_vcpu == vgic_target_oracle(irq)) {
> struct vgic_cpu *new_cpu = &target_vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>
> list_del(&irq->ap_list);
> irq->vcpu = target_vcpu;
> ...
> }
>
> Because there is no check verifying that irq->vcpu is still equal to the
> source vcpu, does this unconditionally execute list_del() on a list entry
> that has already been removed and poisoned?
>
> Would this also bypass acquiring a new list reference, leaving the LPI on the
> new list with a deficient reference count if it avoids a crash?
Urgh... Marc, I think we need Hyunwoo's patch in addition to yours. Even
though this 3-way race seems improbable, it does appear possible :/
[*]: https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/aiHnI1mu6SGQrgnz@v4bel/
Thanks,
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-16 18:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-15 18:16 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Handle race between interrupt affinity change and LPI disabling Marc Zyngier
2026-06-15 18:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-16 18:51 ` Oliver Upton [this message]
2026-06-17 10:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-06-17 11:51 ` Marc Zyngier
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=ajGbLXf8Yc67cSI9@kernel.org \
--to=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=maz@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