From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A79C31C564 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 17:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758217236; cv=none; b=PwysLNiBOIV5YU9ArSVi6nMoXPzpB9xjB4vQ89+lqokgM6PWpauwUixRqk3V0jUvQMwZCK2ZQ+tbc5fDW/JeYGijUN8mC1Rc96On2uMX07Rff7da52LiwgtoZ8Vf/NKcJC4bZbT2teL8JJACjJUGChTownYvWFzag40vmOcWFYw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758217236; c=relaxed/simple; bh=PAJGdxzVh+hSxDOx5VKS60t2Dt2GkMypMDcKSqxK0Gg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XCJ8rzJ4YtVcA6in2L/i8Cmt4l5ZQJ0FIW96LJTKkwtSqoNaZ7nyQj3zBwnK7jc0F32KmAldDOaKezNsafNy4pq/iY6CKpaayLMQkK7xfUNtwHNpoIPtWP2r7vj15HVbskwcBynjwfOtbCFYSBqv9fU+bdGHTE8Zp2vDVZAVWR4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=UP/RZYwM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="UP/RZYwM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1758217233; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=t1W/1phtqwQuVUIVURl6ScoEnd5TdTDKATokoKxzRnw=; b=UP/RZYwM+LUN+9Ji8r6IBL1lsjeNvdQst7HVikKRnBqGpvWIsiASg8sYh+9zknMq4+Ywi7 DruTl9tPYE6JLLqTxaPUAErII6ch61EYN3vH/Pf81co2Ms0M8YimF60Shr0tPKvn+xu+wC 17q2qIdSn9kjgs/GkIPTRTNKUQLz93w= Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-235-gdq_dqUeOgqbugTY2g4XkQ-1; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:40:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: gdq_dqUeOgqbugTY2g4XkQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: gdq_dqUeOgqbugTY2g4XkQ_1758217229 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-45f2f1a650dso8620105e9.2 for ; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:40:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1758217229; x=1758822029; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=t1W/1phtqwQuVUIVURl6ScoEnd5TdTDKATokoKxzRnw=; b=A5yiwvCCT/nBpfNVV6p1RGAmTRZ56T44+zNG4PXjELdNS5gVESDD2bHUn0imAho9DT gUUw+z2eadoWosDEvXs9j3b6Ig9tGcl7ka7uwwmOza5wMg9c57o7lNHTLhWrmUcjsyET c+g/lw5lMJgESCvFTxRnivvw0bfmgKd5iT1kBJZDd/sWqc9ICJlQTH9FXINMlX9XdJRF re1pQddlLHCngUkP/nw8ik5bkrM6enOFhveGlEYi2QXHc3DOltUj6qhZcpWSKYydKQXz hSP0uahBzrQlFNP9+c6s/Uj/P/YwrtQm5tEllAjLkUNr31nyc1MxEEbe2tqO2yMwf70x xF7A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVPnKZo/0OVBMKqncUQeAyj5O/TlDFJ98SE50v1jTQKU1Vc9LrkR/eVR+KqrnI8gw5qXIGS7ls=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwzSi4aH+KS9nFCFzk1gAMToMqI1QZ3R7ZYFsyZ6mkAcCqoyrfa rGYsFhFehfR0bGd5tLrSIhV2fCFfrltXKTsCn5ymW8fzn8EJVBS/DVxYw1u1XBx9yabDRTGJ88K TBnSJ6my+Oj1uf2WBtCO/eXpfovwOBhT/OEv42eC3P6gDeLLxv/3LJoWANA== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvwI20WTsWM6l21MLrg3HaOz2GXC3cq3qJtkqgKyDlOXvQTgaYQdEoIcrOLPfL SJMqDrmyMCkBfDeWl6pi/aJLDEJ7m4w3+KwhZZ++8sKONMKxdSJydXfOtPrRVgnRUIMIkOVYDJk HxDWCmHOYs+S3qm3QvJeV+RGL2XbneDVZsq6TDWNFWLU5ynWeMNchs/ythv+WYejn8Jfqcstvyc liXezWd7dOPZBcJiYNrHfpgLoL/Oz0NyxBoZD65Tlhpn8pAbspg+3xn3c/stq4RPeBCx8SYoqlA rofKx6m+HZhrPaLJ4MPLiL40WRmF7BZYrCc= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:48a5:b0:45f:28ed:6e1e with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-467e8afde63mr763675e9.16.1758217228728; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGOoCiSMZx3r6ahJEsPst7vmWcAL9LRHA1I1NtHk23nXFndZVGSronTsEuZNCUr5eL1KdExGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:48a5:b0:45f:28ed:6e1e with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-467e8afde63mr763425e9.16.1758217228248; Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from redhat.com ([2a06:c701:73e7:4d00:2294:2331:c6cf:2fde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-4613e93dd85sm103570545e9.22.2025.09.18.10.40.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 18 Sep 2025 10:40:27 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 13:40:25 -0400 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior , Paolo Bonzini , Jason Wang , kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] vhost_task: Fix a bug where KVM wakes an exited task Message-ID: <20250918133938-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20250827194107.4142164-1-seanjc@google.com> <20250827201059.EmmdDFB_@linutronix.de> <20250918110828-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20250918154826.oUc0cW0Y@linutronix.de> <20250918120658-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:52:19AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 09:04:07AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2025, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > > On 2025-09-18 11:09:05 [-0400], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > So how about switching to this approach then? > > > > > Instead of piling up fixes like we seem to do now ... > > > > > > I don't have a strong preference for 6.17, beyond landing a fix of some kind. > > > I think there are three options for 6.17, in order of "least like to break > > > something": > > > > > > 1. Sebastian's get_task_struct() fix > > > > > > I am just a bit apprehensive that we don't create a situation > > where we leak the task struct somehow, given the limited > > testing time. Can you help me get convinced that risk is 0? > > I doubt it, I share same similar concerns about lack of testing. So I guess > thinking about this again, #2 is probably safer since it'd only impact KVM? I can't say I understand completely how we get that state though? Why did the warning trigger if it's not a UAF? > > > 2. This series, without the KILLED sanity check in __vhost_task_wake() > > > 3. This series, with my fixup (with which syzbot was happy)