From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Steffen Eiden" <seiden@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Oliver Upton" <oupton@kernel.org>,
"Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
"Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, "Marc Zyngier" <maz@kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/27] KVM, vfio: remove symbol_get(kvm_put_kvm) from vfio
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 09:25:50 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260706092550.A6C801F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260706085229.979525-4-seiden@linux.ibm.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] Concurrent or subsequent bindings of cdev file descriptors to the same VFIO device overwrite the `device->kvm` and `device->kvm_module` pointers without dropping the previous reference, causing a KVM instance memory leak and premature KVM reference drop.
- [High] The architecture-specific KVM module (e.g., kvm-intel.ko) can be unloaded while VFIO still holds a reference to a KVM instance, leading to execution of freed memory when the instance is eventually destroyed.
--
commit 31b847131145e41ad6d50358b1c90ea462e38022
Author: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
KVM, vfio: remove symbol_get(kvm_put_kvm) from vfio
Right now, KVM and VFIO are using symbol_get to access each other's
symbols because of a circular reference between the modules, as well
as to avoid loading them unnecessarily.
The remaining use in VFIO is for kvm_put_kvm, which is not inline
because it needs to call kvm_destroy_vm. However, storing the
address of kvm_destroy_vm in the "struct kvm" is enough to remove
the dependency from VFIO.
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
> index b7b8b45f1cec2..6bddea4d384ff 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/vfio_main.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -451,9 +451,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vfio_unregister_group_dev);
> void vfio_device_get_kvm_safe(struct vfio_device *device, struct kvm *kvm,
> struct module *kvm_module)
> {
> - void (*pfn)(struct kvm *kvm);
> - bool ret;
> -
> lockdep_assert_held(&device->dev_set->lock);
>
> if (!kvm)
> @@ -462,21 +459,13 @@ void vfio_device_get_kvm_safe(struct vfio_device *device, struct kvm *kvm,
> if (!try_module_get(kvm_module))
> return;
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does pinning only the generic
kvm.ko module leave us vulnerable to the architecture-specific module being
unloaded?
When VFIO acquires a reference via try_module_get(kvm_module), it doesn't
pin the architecture module (e.g., kvm-intel.ko). If userspace closes the
KVM fds, the VFS reference count drops to 0, allowing an administrator to
unload the arch module.
Since VFIO still holds a reference to the struct kvm, when VFIO later drops
its reference, KVM destruction proceeds:
kvm_destroy_vm()
kvm_arch_pre_destroy_vm(kvm);
...
kvm_arch_destroy_vm(kvm);
Could these calls into the architecture-specific teardown execute unmapped
memory if the arch module has already been unloaded?
> - pfn = symbol_get(kvm_put_kvm);
> - if (WARN_ON(!pfn))
> + if (!kvm_get_kvm_safe(kvm))
> goto out_put_mod;
>
> - ret = kvm_get_kvm_safe(kvm);
> - if (!ret)
> - goto out_put_sym;
> -
> - device->put_kvm = pfn;
> device->kvm = kvm;
> device->kvm_module = kvm_module;
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but if multiple cdev file descriptors are
opened for the same VFIO device, does this overwrite device->kvm without
dropping the previous reference?
For instance, if vfio_df_get_kvm_safe() is called successfully on a second
file descriptor, but then vfio_df_open() fails because
device->open_count != 0:
drivers/vfio/device_cdev.c:vfio_df_ioctl_bind_iommufd() {
...
vfio_df_get_kvm_safe(df);
ret = vfio_df_open(df);
if (ret)
goto out_put_kvm;
...
}
Would this leak the first KVM instance reference since device->kvm is
unconditionally overwritten here?
Additionally, if the second fd has no KVM instance associated, wouldn't the
error path's call to vfio_device_put_kvm() prematurely drop the original
reference and clear device->kvm?
> return;
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260706085229.979525-1-seiden@linux.ibm.com?part=3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-06 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-06 8:52 [PATCH v4 00/27] KVM: s390: Introduce arm64 KVM Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 01/27] VFIO: take reference to the KVM module Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:12 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 19:53 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2026-07-06 21:12 ` Sean Christopherson
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 02/27] KVM, vfio: remove symbol_get(kvm_get_kvm_safe) from vfio Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 03/27] KVM, vfio: remove symbol_get(kvm_put_kvm) " Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:25 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 04/27] KVM: Make device name configurable Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:14 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 05/27] KVM: Remove KVM_MMIO as config option Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 20:53 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 06/27] arm64: Use proper include variant Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 07/27] arm64: Prepare sharing arm64 headers with s390 Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 21:22 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 08/27] KVM: arm64: Prepare sharing arm64 code " Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 21:28 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 09/27] KVM: arm64: Access elements of vcpu_gp_regs individually Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 17:44 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 10/27] KVM: arm64: Refactor core-reset into a separate function Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 11/27] s390: Use arm64 headers Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 12/27] KVM: s390: Use arm64 code Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:26 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 13/27] KVM: s390: Prepare KVM/s390 for a second KVM module Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 14/27] KVM: s390: Move s390 kvm code into a subdirectory Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 15/27] KVM: S390: Prepare gmap for a second KVM implementation Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:36 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 16/27] KVM: s390: gmap: Refactor storage key and CMMA code into separate files Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 17/27] KVM: s390: Refactor prefix handling into a separate file Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 18/27] KVM: s390: Prepare kvm-s390 for a second kvm module Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 19/27] s390: Introduce Start Arm Execution instruction Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 11:17 ` Janosch Frank
2026-07-06 11:30 ` Christian Borntraeger
2026-07-06 11:58 ` Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 11:53 ` Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 20/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Introduce host definitions Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 21/27] s390/hwcaps: Report SAE support as hwcap Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 11:50 ` Janosch Frank
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 22/27] KVM: s390: Add basic arm64 kvm module Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 23/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Implement required functions Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 9:55 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 12:15 ` Janosch Frank
2026-07-06 20:35 ` Marc Zyngier
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 24/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Implement vm/vcpu create destroy Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 10:04 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 25/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Implement vCPU IOCTLs Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 10:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 26/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Implement basic page fault handler Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 10:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-06 8:52 ` [PATCH v4 27/27] KVM: s390: arm64: Enable KVM_ARM64 config and Kbuild Steffen Eiden
2026-07-06 10:07 ` 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=20260706092550.A6C801F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.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