From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 51D4D38BF67 for ; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 09:58:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788947924; cv=none; b=RAjHh2kKwDGA1MuymHZTa29mDONdRtcezME3myWK49EBcHyHrj5OninXUTnKeIhnaF6J6PcSqULzzxM8JErep+82rDjqpkrUPAKFX9S3e9RrK4Sz5j7PZ/ib6Q80rVFT4L74C2SBaje7D09N3G3VfCuhMD0T0TKnP5WKYBWfDqM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788947924; c=relaxed/simple; bh=30ShRDRaxdVAtnVbEFF+5v3Ba5+WRQGTuAHL/W6cDkw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=dyjO0nAZDKJyx/AEDBmgbXQavuw52N6Ig5n27cf6426fmPDOzCpRFiwMkIbqfOMYko1wHn1RvkbYEP/LEl+ifSuilTXMXT+6ITaxisgiZB7m5H3AaaPdQe530uETKpK3a+UDRCzw3Oj9I+y5n2h/GMv7u4wnUuDIVOohfY1KMkg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=jKg/JkwG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="jKg/JkwG" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFBD31F00A3A; Wed, 9 Sep 2026 09:58:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1788947923; bh=0zK3QuWyvN3xMz4VLS722QNZ91v2VKlj2ieo0mdOOcc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:From:Date; b=jKg/JkwGrPfOMuPk7GtIY/c1U27WHcSuezkC6lb5vXWzgLQ22D+B6eso918wR9MRx BymTz0awnxGL8rFCJWmNsj4ZuGvSu4Twd8Vh7bjXLfxiBoxHqt1stVentpGlu0VvRd pZbCYc7cDKCPHqg3Qbs02PbIRZfbBtVzfsS3QKNE= Subject: FAILED: patch "[PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: Fix missing lock required to access list of" failed to apply to 6.1-stable tree To: akrowiak@linux.ibm.com,borntraeger@linux.ibm.com,mjrosato@linux.ibm.com Cc: From: Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2026 11:54:19 +0200 Message-ID: <2026090919-shelve-unknotted-cb50@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The patch below does not apply to the 6.1-stable tree. If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to . To reproduce the conflict and resubmit, you may use the following commands: git fetch https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/ linux-6.1.y git checkout FETCH_HEAD git cherry-pick -x 7fa61c29850d05e40ca9ed41bfdf57673023f581 # git commit -s git send-email --to '' --in-reply-to '2026090919-shelve-unknotted-cb50@gregkh' --subject-prefix 'PATCH 6.1.y' 'HEAD^..' Possible dependencies: thanks, greg k-h ------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------ >From 7fa61c29850d05e40ca9ed41bfdf57673023f581 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Anthony Krowiak Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2026 16:02:34 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] s390/vfio-ap: Fix missing lock required to access list of ap_matrix_mdev objects In order to traverse or add/remove ap_matrix_mdev objects in the matrix_dev->mdev_list, the matrix_dev->guests_lock mutex must be held. There are two functions that access the list without holding the mutex: vfio_ap_mdev_probe function ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The vfio_ap_mdev_probe function uses the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock mutex to guard the add of a newly created ap_matrix_mdev object to the matrix_dev->mdev_list. This mutex does not protect list access; its purpose is to guard against concurrent access to fields contained in an ap_matrix_mdev object. This could lead to kernel memory corruption or use-after-free if another mdev is created or removed concurrently. The adding of an ap_matrix_mdev object to matrix_dev->mdev_list is now guarded by the matrix_dev->guests_lock which is the correct way to protect against concurrent mdev_list access. Also removed the following two lines of code because the matrix_mdev is allocated via vfio_alloc_device macro which uses kzalloc, so req_trigger and cfg_chg_trigger are already zero-initialised when the struct is allocated before the call to vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev. This prevents a window whereby these triggers are set to NULL after the device is exposed to userspace. matrix_mdev->req_trigger = NULL; matrix_mdev->cfg_chg_trigger = NULL; vfio_ap_mdev_for_queue function ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The status_show function that supports display of the status attribute of the devices in /sys/bus/ap/devices calls the vfio_ap_mdev_for_queue function which iterates the matrix_dev->mdev_list to find the object representing the queue device whose status is to be displayed. In order to traverse this list, the matrix_dev->guests_lock mutex must be held. To fix this, the guests_lock mutex is taken prior to taking the matrix_dev->mdevs_lock mutex in the status_show function. It is taken there rather than the vfio_ap_mdev_for_queue function - where it is needed - because it must be taken prior to the mdevs_lock mutex in order to adhere to the proper locking order and prevent a lockdep splat; also because the mdevs_lock is needed there to access fields within the matrix_mdev object in that function. See the vfio-ap-locking.rst in the linux kernel tree. Fixes: 2c1ee8983aa3 ("s390/vfio-ap: prepare for dynamic update of guest's APCB on queue probe/remove") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Anthony Krowiak Reviewed-by: Matthew Rosato Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c index 1076a9982923..a403d0f59122 100644 --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c @@ -807,12 +807,17 @@ static int vfio_ap_mdev_probe(struct mdev_device *mdev) ret = vfio_register_emulated_iommu_dev(&matrix_mdev->vdev); if (ret) goto err_put_vdev; - matrix_mdev->req_trigger = NULL; - matrix_mdev->cfg_chg_trigger = NULL; + + /* + * Take the matrix_dev->guests_lock mutex before adding the matrix_mdev + * to the mdev_list. All functions that traverse the list must also hold + * this lock to guard against additions to or removals from the list + * while it is being traversed. + */ + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); dev_set_drvdata(&mdev->dev, matrix_mdev); - mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock); list_add(&matrix_mdev->node, &matrix_dev->mdev_list); - mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock); + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); return 0; err_put_vdev: @@ -2292,6 +2297,8 @@ static struct ap_matrix_mdev *vfio_ap_mdev_for_queue(struct vfio_ap_queue *q) unsigned long apid = AP_QID_CARD(q->apqn); unsigned long apqi = AP_QID_QUEUE(q->apqn); + lockdep_assert_held(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); + list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) { if (test_bit_inv(apid, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm) && test_bit_inv(apqi, matrix_mdev->matrix.aqm)) @@ -2311,6 +2318,7 @@ static ssize_t status_show(struct device *dev, struct ap_matrix_mdev *matrix_mdev; struct ap_device *apdev = to_ap_dev(dev); + mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock); q = dev_get_drvdata(&apdev->device); matrix_mdev = vfio_ap_mdev_for_queue(q); @@ -2338,6 +2346,7 @@ static ssize_t status_show(struct device *dev, } mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->mdevs_lock); + mutex_unlock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); return nchars; } @@ -2756,6 +2765,12 @@ static void vfio_ap_mdev_cfg_add(unsigned long *apm_add, unsigned long *aqm_add, vfio_ap_filter_apid_by_qtype(apm_add, aqm_add); + /* + * It is safe to traverse this list here because the + * required guard - matrix_dev->guests_lock - is taken in the + * vfio_ap_on_cfg_changed function prior to this function getting + * called. + */ list_for_each_entry(matrix_mdev, &matrix_dev->mdev_list, node) { bitmap_and(matrix_mdev->apm_add, matrix_mdev->matrix.apm, apm_add, AP_DEVICES); @@ -2815,6 +2830,10 @@ void vfio_ap_on_cfg_changed(struct ap_config_info *cur_cfg_info, if (!cur_cfg_info || !prev_cfg_info) return; + /* + * Take the guests_lock mutex here to guard access to the + * matrix_dev->mdev_list in the two functions called below. + */ mutex_lock(&matrix_dev->guests_lock); vfio_ap_mdev_on_cfg_remove(cur_cfg_info, prev_cfg_info);