From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kas@kernel.org>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-coco@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>,
Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
Hou Wenlong <houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] KVM: x86: Leave user-return notifier registered on reboot/shutdown
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 17:37:11 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aQ6ex5rKZU-bEDiX@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aQ2rTgWwqWvoqnIL@intel.com>
On Fri, Nov 07, 2025, Chao Gao wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2025 at 12:15:27PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> >diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >index bb7a7515f280..c927326344b1 100644
> >--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >@@ -13086,7 +13086,21 @@ int kvm_arch_enable_virtualization_cpu(void)
> > void kvm_arch_disable_virtualization_cpu(void)
> > {
> > kvm_x86_call(disable_virtualization_cpu)();
> >- drop_user_return_notifiers();
> >+
> >+ /*
> >+ * Leave the user-return notifiers as-is when disabling virtualization
> >+ * for reboot, i.e. when disabling via IPI function call, and instead
> >+ * pin kvm.ko (if it's a module) to defend against use-after-free (in
> >+ * the *very* unlikely scenario module unload is racing with reboot).
> >+ * On a forced reboot, tasks aren't frozen before shutdown, and so KVM
> >+ * could be actively modifying user-return MSR state when the IPI to
> >+ * disable virtualization arrives. Handle the extreme edge case here
> >+ * instead of trying to account for it in the normal flows.
> >+ */
> >+ if (in_task() || WARN_ON_ONCE(!kvm_rebooting))
> >+ drop_user_return_notifiers();
> >+ else
> >+ __module_get(THIS_MODULE);
>
> This doesn't pin kvm-{intel,amd}.ko, right? if so, there is still a potential
> user-after-free if the CPU returns to userspace after the per-CPU
> user_return_msrs is freed on kvm-{intel,amd}.ko unloading.
>
> I think we need to either move __module_get() into
> kvm_x86_call(disable_virtualization_cpu)() or allocate/free the per-CPU
> user_return_msrs when loading/unloading kvm.ko. e.g.,
Gah, you're right. I considered the complications with vendor modules, but missed
the kvm_x86_vendor_exit() angle.
> >From 0269f0ee839528e8a9616738d615a096901d6185 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2025 00:10:28 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Allocate/free user_return_msrs at kvm.ko
> (un)loading time
>
> Move user_return_msrs allocation/free from vendor modules (kvm-intel.ko and
> kvm-amd.ko) (un)loading time to kvm.ko's to make it less risky to access
> user_return_msrs in kvm.ko. Tying the lifetime of user_return_msrs to
> vendor modules makes every access to user_return_msrs prone to
> use-after-free issues as vendor modules may be unloaded at any time.
>
> kvm_nr_uret_msrs is still reset to 0 when vendor modules are loaded to
> clear out the user return MSR list configured by the previous vendor
> module.
Hmm, the other idea would to stash the owner in kvm_x86_ops, and then do:
__module_get(kvm_x86_ops.owner);
LOL, but that's even more flawed from a certain perspective, because
kvm_x86_ops.owner could be completely stale, especially if this races with
kvm_x86_vendor_exit().
> +static void __exit kvm_free_user_return_msrs(void)
> {
> int cpu;
>
> @@ -10044,13 +10043,11 @@ int kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
> *ops)
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> - r = kvm_init_user_return_msrs();
> - if (r)
> - goto out_free_x86_emulator_cache;
> + kvm_nr_uret_msrs = 0;
For maximum paranoia, we should zero at exit() and WARN at init().
> r = kvm_mmu_vendor_module_init();
> if (r)
> - goto out_free_percpu;
> + goto out_free_x86_emulator_cache;
>
> kvm_caps.supported_vm_types = BIT(KVM_X86_DEFAULT_VM);
> kvm_caps.supported_mce_cap = MCG_CTL_P | MCG_SER_P;
> @@ -10148,8 +10145,6 @@ int kvm_x86_vendor_init(struct kvm_x86_init_ops
> *ops)
> kvm_x86_call(hardware_unsetup)();
> out_mmu_exit:
> kvm_mmu_vendor_module_exit();
> -out_free_percpu:
> - kvm_free_user_return_msrs();
> out_free_x86_emulator_cache:
> kmem_cache_destroy(x86_emulator_cache);
> return r;
> @@ -10178,7 +10173,6 @@ void kvm_x86_vendor_exit(void)
> #endif
> kvm_x86_call(hardware_unsetup)();
> kvm_mmu_vendor_module_exit();
> - kvm_free_user_return_msrs();
> kmem_cache_destroy(x86_emulator_cache);
> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_XEN
> static_key_deferred_flush(&kvm_xen_enabled);
> @@ -14361,8 +14355,14 @@ EXPORT_TRACEPOINT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_rmp_fault);
>
> static int __init kvm_x86_init(void)
> {
> + int r;
> +
> kvm_init_xstate_sizes();
>
> + r = kvm_init_user_return_msrs();
> + if (r)
Rather than dynamically allocate the array of structures, we can "statically"
allocate it when the module is loaded.
I'll post this as a proper patch (with my massages) once I've tested.
Thanks much!
(and I forgot to hit "send", so this is going to show up after the patch, sorry)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-11-08 1:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-30 19:15 [PATCH v5 0/4] KVM: x86: User-return MSR fix+cleanups Sean Christopherson
2025-10-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v5 1/4] KVM: TDX: Explicitly set user-return MSRs that *may* be clobbered by the TDX-Module Sean Christopherson
2025-11-03 6:20 ` Yan Zhao
2025-11-04 7:06 ` Yan Zhao
2025-11-04 8:40 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-11-04 9:31 ` Yan Zhao
2025-11-04 17:55 ` Sean Christopherson
2025-11-05 1:52 ` Yan Zhao
2025-11-05 9:16 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-11-06 2:22 ` Yan Zhao
2025-11-03 7:42 ` Xiaoyao Li
2025-10-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v5 2/4] KVM: x86: WARN if user-return MSR notifier is registered on exit Sean Christopherson
2025-10-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v5 3/4] KVM: x86: Leave user-return notifier registered on reboot/shutdown Sean Christopherson
2025-11-07 8:18 ` Chao Gao
2025-11-08 1:37 ` Sean Christopherson [this message]
2025-10-30 19:15 ` [PATCH v5 4/4] KVM: x86: Don't disable IRQs when unregistering user-return notifier Sean Christopherson
2025-11-04 10:34 ` Huang, Kai
2025-11-10 15:37 ` [PATCH v5 0/4] KVM: x86: User-return MSR fix+cleanups Sean Christopherson
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=aQ6ex5rKZU-bEDiX@google.com \
--to=seanjc@google.com \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=houwenlong.hwl@antgroup.com \
--cc=kas@kernel.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-coco@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=xiaoyao.li@intel.com \
--cc=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).