From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, "Gavin Shan" <gshan@redhat.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will@kernel.org>,
"Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>,
"Stefano Garzarella" <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
"Eugenio Pérez" <eperezma@redhat.com>,
"Stefan Hajnoczi" <stefanha@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux.dev,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH untested] vhost: order avail ring reads after index updates
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:26:23 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f7be6f4ed4bc5405e9a6b848e5ac3dd1f9955c2a.1711560268.git.mst@redhat.com> (raw)
vhost_get_vq_desc (correctly) uses smp_rmb to order
avail ring reads after index reads.
However, over time we added two more places that read the
index and do not bother with barriers.
Since vhost_get_vq_desc when it was written assumed it is the
only reader when it sees a new index value is cached
it does not bother with a barrier either, as a result,
on the nvidia-gracehopper platform (arm64) available ring
entry reads have been observed bypassing ring reads, causing
a ring corruption.
To fix, factor out the correct index access code from vhost_get_vq_desc.
As a side benefit, we also validate the index on all paths now, which
will hopefully help catch future errors earlier.
Note: current code is inconsistent in how it handles errors:
some places treat it as an empty ring, others - non empty.
This patch does not attempt to change the existing behaviour.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Reported-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Fixes: 275bf960ac69 ("vhost: better detection of available buffers")
Cc: "Jason Wang" <jasowang@redhat.com>
Fixes: d3bb267bbdcb ("vhost: cache avail index in vhost_enable_notify()")
Cc: "Stefano Garzarella" <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
I think it's better to bite the bullet and clean up the code.
Note: this is still only built, not tested.
Gavin could you help test please?
Especially on the arm platform you have?
Will thanks so much for finding this race!
drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 045f666b4f12..26b70b1fd9ff 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -1290,10 +1290,38 @@ static void vhost_dev_unlock_vqs(struct vhost_dev *d)
mutex_unlock(&d->vqs[i]->mutex);
}
-static inline int vhost_get_avail_idx(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
- __virtio16 *idx)
+static inline int vhost_get_avail_idx(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
- return vhost_get_avail(vq, *idx, &vq->avail->idx);
+ __virtio16 idx;
+ u16 avail_idx;
+ int r = vhost_get_avail(vq, idx, &vq->avail->idx);
+
+ if (unlikely(r < 0)) {
+ vq_err(vq, "Failed to access avail idx at %p: %d\n",
+ &vq->avail->idx, r);
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ avail_idx = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, idx);
+
+ /* Check it isn't doing very strange things with descriptor numbers. */
+ if (unlikely((u16)(avail_idx - vq->last_avail_idx) > vq->num)) {
+ vq_err(vq, "Guest moved used index from %u to %u",
+ vq->last_avail_idx, vq->avail_idx);
+ return -EFAULT;
+ }
+
+ /* Nothing new? We are done. */
+ if (avail_idx == vq->avail_idx)
+ return 0;
+
+ vq->avail_idx = avail_idx;
+
+ /* We updated vq->avail_idx so we need a memory barrier between
+ * the index read above and the caller reading avail ring entries.
+ */
+ smp_rmb();
+ return 1;
}
static inline int vhost_get_avail_head(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
@@ -2498,38 +2526,21 @@ int vhost_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
{
struct vring_desc desc;
unsigned int i, head, found = 0;
- u16 last_avail_idx;
- __virtio16 avail_idx;
+ u16 last_avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx;
__virtio16 ring_head;
int ret, access;
- /* Check it isn't doing very strange things with descriptor numbers. */
- last_avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx;
if (vq->avail_idx == vq->last_avail_idx) {
- if (unlikely(vhost_get_avail_idx(vq, &avail_idx))) {
- vq_err(vq, "Failed to access avail idx at %p\n",
- &vq->avail->idx);
- return -EFAULT;
- }
- vq->avail_idx = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx);
-
- if (unlikely((u16)(vq->avail_idx - last_avail_idx) > vq->num)) {
- vq_err(vq, "Guest moved used index from %u to %u",
- last_avail_idx, vq->avail_idx);
- return -EFAULT;
- }
+ ret = vhost_get_avail_idx(vq);
+ if (unlikely(ret < 0))
+ return ret;
/* If there's nothing new since last we looked, return
* invalid.
*/
- if (vq->avail_idx == last_avail_idx)
+ if (!ret)
return vq->num;
-
- /* Only get avail ring entries after they have been
- * exposed by guest.
- */
- smp_rmb();
}
/* Grab the next descriptor number they're advertising, and increment
@@ -2790,25 +2801,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_add_used_and_signal_n);
/* return true if we're sure that avaiable ring is empty */
bool vhost_vq_avail_empty(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
- __virtio16 avail_idx;
int r;
if (vq->avail_idx != vq->last_avail_idx)
return false;
- r = vhost_get_avail_idx(vq, &avail_idx);
- if (unlikely(r))
- return false;
- vq->avail_idx = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx);
+ r = vhost_get_avail_idx(vq);
- return vq->avail_idx == vq->last_avail_idx;
+ /* Note: we treat error as non-empty here */
+ return r == 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(vhost_vq_avail_empty);
/* OK, now we need to know about added descriptors. */
bool vhost_enable_notify(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
{
- __virtio16 avail_idx;
int r;
if (!(vq->used_flags & VRING_USED_F_NO_NOTIFY))
@@ -2832,13 +2839,10 @@ bool vhost_enable_notify(struct vhost_dev *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
/* They could have slipped one in as we were doing that: make
* sure it's written, then check again. */
smp_mb();
- r = vhost_get_avail_idx(vq, &avail_idx);
- if (r) {
- vq_err(vq, "Failed to check avail idx at %p: %d\n",
- &vq->avail->idx, r);
+ r = vhost_get_avail_idx(vq);
+ /* Note: we treat error as empty here */
+ if (r < 0)
return false;
- }
- vq->avail_idx = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, avail_idx);
return vq->avail_idx != vq->last_avail_idx;
}
--
MST
next reply other threads:[~2024-03-27 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-27 17:26 Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2024-03-27 19:52 ` [PATCH untested] vhost: order avail ring reads after index updates Will Deacon
2024-03-27 20:04 ` 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=f7be6f4ed4bc5405e9a6b848e5ac3dd1f9955c2a.1711560268.git.mst@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=eperezma@redhat.com \
--cc=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sgarzare@redhat.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).