From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Karl Mehltretter" <kmehltretter@gmail.com>
Cc: "Alexander Gordeev" <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Heiko Carstens" <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
"Vasily Gorbik" <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
"Christian Borntraeger" <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] remoteproc: implement synchronize_cbs() for virtio devices
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2026 05:54:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260908055408.70ED01F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260908053817.26065-4-kmehltretter@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 6 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] idr_find() is called without rcu_read_lock() in preemptible contexts, leading to potential use-after-free of radix tree nodes.
- [High] The virtqueue pointer is published before its initialization is complete and without necessary memory barriers, exposing uninitialized memory to concurrent readers.
- [High] The added SRCU synchronization leaves the rvring structure vulnerable to Use-After-Free during device teardown.
- [High] Error path in rp_find_vq() erroneously removes the vring IDR entry without clearing it, permanently breaking the vring and causing a double-free on teardown.
- [High] rproc_add() error path causes a use-after-free and a double-free of the rproc structure.
- [High] Missing cancel_work_sync() for the crash handler work item before freeing the rproc struct.
--
commit c12071a358959f8d763c10c9e9b78779109dae3f
Author: Karl Mehltretter <kmehltretter@gmail.com>
remoteproc: implement synchronize_cbs() for virtio devices
Platform drivers invoke rproc_vq_interrupt() from hard-IRQ handlers,
threaded handlers, and work items. Because rpmsg callbacks may sleep,
the virtio core's synchronize_rcu() fallback does not synchronize with
callbacks across all these contexts. A device reset can therefore
complete while a callback is still running.
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> index f003be006b1bf..6756f2fe4ec50 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c
> @@ -2367,6 +2367,7 @@ static void rproc_type_release(struct device *dev)
>
> dev_info(&rproc->dev, "releasing %s\n", rproc->name);
>
> + cleanup_srcu_struct(&rproc->vq_srcu);
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but is there a risk of a
use-after-free here if the crash handler work item is still pending?
rproc_alloc() initializes the rproc->crash_handler work item. If the remote
processor is deleted and freed, neither rproc_del() nor rproc_type_release()
calls cancel_work_sync(&rproc->crash_handler). If the work executes after this
structure is freed, the thread will dereference freed memory.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but can the error path in rproc_add() cause a
use-after-free and a subsequent double-free?
If device_add(dev) fails, the error path erroneously calls put_device(dev):
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_core.c:rproc_add() {
...
ret = device_add(dev);
if (ret < 0) {
put_device(dev);
goto rproc_remove_cdev;
}
...
rproc_remove_cdev:
rproc_char_device_remove(rproc);
return ret;
}
Since the initial refcount is 1, put_device() drops it to 0, immediately
freeing the rproc structure. Calling rproc_char_device_remove(rproc) then
accesses the cdev within the already freed memory. Returning the error to the
caller typically results in rproc_free() being called, causing a double-free.
> idr_destroy(&rproc->notifyids);
>
> if (rproc->index >= 0)
[ ... ]
> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
> index d5e9ff045a28a..7fefb4bd7adcb 100644
> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -88,15 +89,23 @@ static bool rproc_virtio_notify(struct virtqueue *vq)
> */
> irqreturn_t rproc_vq_interrupt(struct rproc *rproc, int notifyid)
> {
> + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> struct rproc_vring *rvring;
> + struct virtqueue *vq;
> + int idx;
>
> dev_dbg(&rproc->dev, "vq index %d is interrupted\n", notifyid);
>
> + idx = srcu_read_lock(&rproc->vq_srcu);
> +
> rvring = idr_find(&rproc->notifyids, notifyid);
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but might calling idr_find() here without
standard RCU read-side protection risk a use-after-free of internal radix tree
nodes?
This function runs in a preemptible context (threaded IRQ handler). idr_find()
relies on rcu_read_lock() for safe lockless traversal. While this patch wraps
it in srcu_read_lock(), SRCU does not block standard RCU grace periods.
If a concurrent idr_remove() runs (e.g., during device teardown) and a standard
RCU grace period completes while the thread is preempted inside idr_find(), the
internal nodes could be freed and then dereferenced when the thread resumes.
> - if (!rvring || !rvring->vq)
> - return IRQ_NONE;
> + vq = rvring ? READ_ONCE(rvring->vq) : NULL;
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but does the added SRCU
synchronization leave the rvring structure vulnerable to a use-after-free
during device teardown?
While rproc_vq_interrupt() is now protected by an SRCU critical section, there
does not appear to be a corresponding synchronize_srcu() in the platform device
teardown path:
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c:rproc_virtio_remove() {
...
for (id = 0; id < ARRAY_SIZE(rvdev->vring); id++) {
rvring = &rvdev->vring[id];
rproc_free_vring(rvring);
}
...
}
The IDR entries are removed, but the function returns without waiting for SRCU
readers. The core driver then cleans up devres, instantly freeing the rvdev
(which embeds rvring). If rproc_vq_interrupt() is preempted after locating
rvring but before accessing rvring->vq, it will dereference freed memory upon
resumption.
> + if (vq)
> + ret = vring_interrupt(0, vq);
>
> - return vring_interrupt(0, rvring->vq);
> + srcu_read_unlock(&rproc->vq_srcu, idx);
> +
> + return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(rproc_vq_interrupt);
>
> @@ -153,7 +162,7 @@ static struct virtqueue *rp_find_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev,
>
> vq->num_max = num;
>
> - rvring->vq = vq;
> + WRITE_ONCE(rvring->vq, vq);
> vq->priv = rvring;
[Severity: High]
This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but would publishing the virtqueue
pointer here without a release barrier expose uninitialized memory to
concurrent readers?
In vring_new_virtqueue(), vq is allocated and initialized, but vq->priv is not
set. The pointer is then published to concurrent readers via WRITE_ONCE.
Since WRITE_ONCE does not provide release semantics on weakly ordered
architectures, a concurrent rproc_vq_interrupt() could observe a non-NULL vq
before vq->priv is set or before the internal state of vq is visible. The
handler would then call vring_interrupt(0, vq) on an improperly initialized
structure.
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but could the error path in rp_find_vq()
permanently break the vring and cause a double-free on teardown?
If vring_new_virtqueue() fails, the error path calls rproc_free_vring(rvring),
which executes idr_remove(), but it does not reset rvring->notifyid:
drivers/remoteproc/remoteproc_virtio.c:rp_find_vq() {
...
vq = vring_new_virtqueue(...);
if (!vq) {
dev_err(dev, "vring_new_virtqueue %s failed\n", name);
rproc_free_vring(rvring);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
...
}
If the driver successfully binds later, rp_find_vq() might succeed, but the
notifyid is no longer in the IDR, silently breaking interrupts. Furthermore,
when the device is unbound, rproc_virtio_remove() loops over all vrings and
calls rproc_free_vring() again, executing a second idr_remove() for the same
notifyid. If the ID was reused by another vring, its entry will be erroneously
deleted.
>
> /* Update vring in resource table */
> @@ -165,14 +174,20 @@ static struct virtqueue *rp_find_vq(struct virtio_device *vdev,
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260908053817.26065-1-kmehltretter@gmail.com?part=3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-08 5:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-08 5:38 [PATCH v3 0/6] virtio: fix and add callback synchronization hooks Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] virtio_ccw: fix synchronize_cbs() after interrupt fallback Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] virtio_ccw: always take irq_lock in the classic interrupt handler Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-08 8:14 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] remoteproc: implement synchronize_cbs() for virtio devices Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:54 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] um: virtio_uml: implement synchronize_cbs() Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:50 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] platform/mellanox: mlxbf-tmfifo: " Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:52 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-08 5:38 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] virtio_vdpa: " Karl Mehltretter
2026-09-08 5:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-08 8:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2026-09-08 8:06 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] virtio: fix and add callback synchronization hooks Michael S. Tsirkin
2026-09-08 8:25 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=20260908055408.70ED01F00A3A@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kmehltretter@gmail.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@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