From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Yaohan Li" <shunsheng1218@gmail.com>
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
"Eugenio Perez" <eperezma@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] virtio_console: fix buffer ownership and unplug races in the read path
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:50:52 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-200865@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261106053438.1206065-1-shunsheng1218@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential
issue to consider:
- [Medium] virtio_console: unplug race in fill_readbuf() and
port_fops_read() returns 0
--
commit eb5deeedcdec231a191fa4aa424df11b809cdf63
Author: Yaohan Li <shunsheng1218@gmail.com>
virtio_console: fix buffer ownership and unplug races in the read path
This commit tracks ownership of port input buffers across unlocked reads
and adds an unplugging state to prevent use-after-free and buffer reorder
races during concurrent reads and port hot-unplug.
> diff --git a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> index 019bcae81af5c..d1757017d9bd0 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/virtio_console.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -534,19 +551,48 @@ static void discard_port_data(struct port *port)
> err);
> }
>
> -static bool port_has_data(struct port *port)
> +/*
> + * Input state of a port, snapshotted under inbuf_lock. The distinction
> + * between a buffer that can be acquired now (AVAILABLE) and one that is
> + * owned by another reader (CLAIMED) matters for poll() and for blocking
> + * reads: only AVAILABLE must be reported as readable, while both mean
> + * that unread data may still be pending for the EOF logic.
> + */
> +enum port_input_state {
> + PORT_INPUT_EMPTY,
> + PORT_INPUT_AVAILABLE,
> + PORT_INPUT_CLAIMED,
> + PORT_INPUT_UNPLUGGED,
> +};
> +
> +/* Callers must not hold inbuf_lock. */
> +static enum port_input_state port_input_state(struct port *port)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> - bool ret;
> + enum port_input_state state;
>
> - ret = false;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->inbuf_lock, flags);
> - port->inbuf = get_inbuf(port);
> - if (port->inbuf)
> - ret = true;
> +
> + if (port->unplugging || !port->portdev) {
> + state = PORT_INPUT_UNPLUGGED;
> + } else if (port->inbuf_claimed) {
> + state = PORT_INPUT_CLAIMED;
> + } else {
> + port->inbuf = get_inbuf(port);
> + state = port->inbuf ? PORT_INPUT_AVAILABLE
> + : PORT_INPUT_EMPTY;
> + }
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->inbuf_lock, flags);
> - return ret;
> + return state;
> +}
> +
> +static bool port_has_data(struct port *port)
> +{
> + enum port_input_state state = port_input_state(port);
> +
> + return state == PORT_INPUT_AVAILABLE ||
> + state == PORT_INPUT_CLAIMED;
> }
[ ... ]
> @@ -692,24 +738,112 @@ static ssize_t __send_to_port(struct port *port, struct scatterlist *sg,
[ ... ]
> + port->inbuf = get_inbuf(port);
> buf = port->inbuf;
> + if (!buf) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->inbuf_lock, flags);
> + if (!to_user)
> + return 0;
> + if (nonblock)
> + return READ_ONCE(port->host_connected) ? -EAGAIN : 0;
> + /*
> + * The data we saw was consumed by another reader while we
> + * waited for its claim. Keep blocking like the fops-level
> + * wait instead of reporting a spurious EOF: wait for new
> + * data, a disconnect or the unplug fence.
> + */
> + err = wait_event_freezable(port->waitqueue,
> + !will_read_block(port));
> + if (err)
> + return err;
> + if (!READ_ONCE(port->guest_connected))
> + return -ENODEV;
> + if (!READ_ONCE(port->host_connected) && !port_has_data(port))
> + return 0;
> + goto retry;
> + }
[Severity: Medium]
Can fill_readbuf() and port_fops_read() still return 0 instead of -ENODEV
when a read races with unplug_port()?
unplug_port() sets port->unplugging = true under inbuf_lock, drops the
lock to remove port->list under ports_lock, and only then re-acquires
inbuf_lock to clear guest_connected and host_connected. Furthermore,
port_has_data() returns false for PORT_INPUT_UNPLUGGED, and
port->host_connected is read outside inbuf_lock:
CPU0 (fill_readbuf) CPU1 (unplug_port)
wait_event_freezable(...)
spin_lock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock)
port->unplugging = true
spin_unlock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock)
...
spin_lock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock)
!READ_ONCE(port->guest_connected)
-> false
port->guest_connected = false
port->host_connected = false
spin_unlock_irq(&port->inbuf_lock)
!READ_ONCE(port->host_connected)
&& !port_has_data(port)
-> true (PORT_INPUT_UNPLUGGED)
return 0; <-- returns EOF instead of -ENODEV
The same split between port_input_state() (or get_inbuf()) and
READ_ONCE(port->host_connected) exists in the non-blocking path above and
at bothPORT_INPUT_EMPTY checks in port_fops_read(): if unplug_port() runs
after port_input_state() returns PORT_INPUT_EMPTY, it clears
port->host_connected and the reader returns 0 instead of -ENODEV.
In addition, because unplug_port() sets port->unplugging before clearing
port->guest_connected, port_fops_poll() can observe port->guest_connected
as true and then call will_read_block(), which sees PORT_INPUT_UNPLUGGED
and returns false, reporting EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM on an unplugging port
with no data.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261106053438.1206065-1-shunsheng1218@gmail.com?part=1
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-06 5:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-06 5:34 [PATCH v3] virtio_console: fix buffer ownership and unplug races in the read path Yaohan Li
2026-11-06 5:50 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
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=sashiko-outbox-200865@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=eperezma@redhat.com \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=shunsheng1218@gmail.com \
--cc=virtualization@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