diff mbox

[1/2] kvm: Fix mmu_notifier release race

Message ID 1493028624-29837-2-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Suzuki K Poulose April 24, 2017, 10:10 a.m. UTC
The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
called more than once via two different paths, which could end
up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).

e.g:

thread A                                        thread B
-------                                         --------------

 get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
 do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
 exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
 exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
 mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
  kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
  ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
                                                  spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
                                                kvm_arch_free_kvm()
   *** use after free of kvm ***

This patch attempts to solve the problem by holding a reference to the KVM
for the mmu_notifier, which is dropped only from notifier->ops.release().
This will ensure that the KVM struct is available till we reach the
kvm_mmu_notifier_release, and the kvm_destroy_vm is called only from/after
it. So, we can unregister the notifier with no_release option and hence
avoiding the race above. However, we need to make sure that the KVM is
freed only after the mmu_notifier has finished processing the notifier due to
the following possible path of execution :

mmu_notifier_release -> kvm_mmu_notifier_release -> kvm_put_kvm ->
  kvm_destroy_vm -> kvm_arch_free_kvm

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAeHK+x8udHKq9xa1zkTO6ax5E8Dk32HYWfaT05FMchL2cr48g@mail.gmail.com

Fixes: commit 85db06e514422 ("KVM: mmu_notifiers release method")
Reported-by: andreyknvl@google.com
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: andreyknvl@google.com
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
---
 include/linux/kvm_host.h |  1 +
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c      | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Comments

Christoffer Dall April 25, 2017, 3:37 p.m. UTC | #1
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 11:10:23AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
> of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
> tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
> There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
> called more than once via two different paths, which could end
> up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
> 
> e.g:
> 
> thread A                                        thread B
> -------                                         --------------
> 
>  get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
>  do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
>  exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
>  exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>  mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
>   kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
>   ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
>                                                   spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>                                                 kvm_arch_free_kvm()
>    *** use after free of kvm ***
> 
> This patch attempts to solve the problem by holding a reference to the KVM
> for the mmu_notifier, which is dropped only from notifier->ops.release().
> This will ensure that the KVM struct is available till we reach the
> kvm_mmu_notifier_release, and the kvm_destroy_vm is called only from/after
> it. So, we can unregister the notifier with no_release option and hence
> avoiding the race above. However, we need to make sure that the KVM is
> freed only after the mmu_notifier has finished processing the notifier due to
> the following possible path of execution :
> 
> mmu_notifier_release -> kvm_mmu_notifier_release -> kvm_put_kvm ->
>   kvm_destroy_vm -> kvm_arch_free_kvm
> 
> [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAeHK+x8udHKq9xa1zkTO6ax5E8Dk32HYWfaT05FMchL2cr48g@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Fixes: commit 85db06e514422 ("KVM: mmu_notifiers release method")
> Reported-by: andreyknvl@google.com
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> Cc: andreyknvl@google.com
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> Tested-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>

This looks good to me, but we should have some KVM generic experts look
at it as well.

 Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>

> ---
>  include/linux/kvm_host.h |  1 +
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c      | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> index d025074..561e968 100644
> --- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
> @@ -424,6 +424,7 @@ struct kvm {
>  	struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier;
>  	unsigned long mmu_notifier_seq;
>  	long mmu_notifier_count;
> +	struct rcu_head mmu_notifier_rcu;
>  #endif
>  	long tlbs_dirty;
>  	struct list_head devices;
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 88257b3..2c3fdd4 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -471,6 +471,7 @@ static void kvm_mmu_notifier_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>  	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
>  	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
>  	srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
> +	kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
>  }
>  
>  static const struct mmu_notifier_ops kvm_mmu_notifier_ops = {
> @@ -486,8 +487,46 @@ static const struct mmu_notifier_ops kvm_mmu_notifier_ops = {
>  
>  static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> +	int rc;
>  	kvm->mmu_notifier.ops = &kvm_mmu_notifier_ops;
> -	return mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
> +	rc = mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
> +	/*
> +	 * We hold a reference to KVM here to make sure that the KVM
> +	 * doesn't get free'd before ops->release() completes.
> +	 */
> +	if (!rc)
> +		kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
> +	return rc;
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_free_vm_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> +{
> +	struct kvm *kvm = container_of(rcu, struct kvm, mmu_notifier_rcu);
> +	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * We hold a reference to kvm instance for mmu_notifier and is
> +	 * only released when ops->release() is called via exit_mmap path.
> +	 * So, when we reach here ops->release() has been called already, which
> +	 * flushes the shadow page tables. Hence there is no need to call the
> +	 * release() again when we unregister the notifier. However, we need
> +	 * to delay freeing up the kvm until the release() completes, since
> +	 * we could reach here via :
> +	 *  kvm_mmu_notifier_release() -> kvm_put_kvm() -> kvm_destroy_vm()
> +	 */
> +	mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(&kvm->mmu_notifier, kvm->mm);
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Wait until the mmu_notifier has finished the release().
> +	 * See comments above in kvm_flush_shadow_mmu.
> +	 */
> +	mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&kvm->mmu_notifier_rcu, kvm_free_vm_rcu);
>  }
>  
>  #else  /* !(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER && KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) */
> @@ -497,6 +536,16 @@ static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static void kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
> +}
> +
> +static void kvm_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER && KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER */
>  
>  static struct kvm_memslots *kvm_alloc_memslots(void)
> @@ -733,18 +782,14 @@ static void kvm_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>  		kvm->buses[i] = NULL;
>  	}
>  	kvm_coalesced_mmio_free(kvm);
> -#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
> -	mmu_notifier_unregister(&kvm->mmu_notifier, kvm->mm);
> -#else
> -	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
> -#endif
> +	kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(kvm);
>  	kvm_arch_destroy_vm(kvm);
>  	kvm_destroy_devices(kvm);
>  	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++)
>  		kvm_free_memslots(kvm, kvm->memslots[i]);
>  	cleanup_srcu_struct(&kvm->irq_srcu);
>  	cleanup_srcu_struct(&kvm->srcu);
> -	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
> +	kvm_free_vm(kvm);
>  	preempt_notifier_dec();
>  	hardware_disable_all();
>  	mmdrop(mm);
> -- 
> 2.7.4
>
Radim Krčmář April 25, 2017, 6:49 p.m. UTC | #2
2017-04-24 11:10+0100, Suzuki K Poulose:
> The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
> of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
> tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
> There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
> called more than once via two different paths, which could end
> up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
> 
> e.g:
> 
> thread A                                        thread B
> -------                                         --------------
> 
>  get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
>  do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
>  exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
>  exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>  mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
>   kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
>   ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
>                                                   spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>                                                 kvm_arch_free_kvm()
>    *** use after free of kvm ***

I don't understand this race ...
a piece of code in mmu_notifier_unregister() says:

  	/*
  	 * Wait for any running method to finish, of course including
  	 * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_release instead of us.
  	 */
  	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);

and code before that removes the notifier from the list, so it cannot be
called after we pass this point.  mmu_notifier_release() does roughly
the same and explains it as:

  	/*
  	 * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release from returning to
  	 * exit_mmap (which would proceed with freeing all pages in the mm)
  	 * until the ->release method returns, if it was invoked by
  	 * mmu_notifier_unregister.
  	 *
  	 * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one mm_count
  	 * is held by exit_mmap.
  	 */
  	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);

The call of mmu_notifier->release is protected by srcu in both cases and
while it seems possible that mmu_notifier->release would be called
twice, I don't see a combination that could result in use-after-free
from mmu_notifier_release after mmu_notifier_unregister() has returned.

Doesn't [2/2] solve the exact same issue (that the release method cannot
be called twice in parallel)?

Thanks.
Suzuki K Poulose April 26, 2017, 4:03 p.m. UTC | #3
On 25/04/17 19:49, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-04-24 11:10+0100, Suzuki K Poulose:
>> The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
>> of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
>> tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
>> There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
>> called more than once via two different paths, which could end
>> up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
>>
>> e.g:
>>
>> thread A                                        thread B
>> -------                                         --------------
>>
>>  get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
>>  do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
>>  exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
>>  exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>  mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
>>   kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
>>   ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
>>                                                   spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>                                                 kvm_arch_free_kvm()
>>    *** use after free of kvm ***
>
> I don't understand this race ...
> a piece of code in mmu_notifier_unregister() says:
>
>   	/*
>   	 * Wait for any running method to finish, of course including
>   	 * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_release instead of us.
>   	 */
>   	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>
> and code before that removes the notifier from the list, so it cannot be
> called after we pass this point.  mmu_notifier_release() does roughly
> the same and explains it as:
>
>   	/*
>   	 * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release from returning to
>   	 * exit_mmap (which would proceed with freeing all pages in the mm)
>   	 * until the ->release method returns, if it was invoked by
>   	 * mmu_notifier_unregister.
>   	 *
>   	 * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one mm_count
>   	 * is held by exit_mmap.
>   	 */
>   	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>
> The call of mmu_notifier->release is protected by srcu in both cases and
> while it seems possible that mmu_notifier->release would be called
> twice, I don't see a combination that could result in use-after-free
> from mmu_notifier_release after mmu_notifier_unregister() has returned.

Thanks for bringing it up. Even I am wondering why this is triggered ! (But it
does get triggered for sure !!)

The only difference I can spot with _unregister & _release paths are the way
we use src_read_lock across the deletion of the entry from the list.

In mmu_notifier_unregister() we do :

                 id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
                 /*
                  * exit_mmap will block in mmu_notifier_release to guarantee
                  * that ->release is called before freeing the pages.
                  */
                 if (mn->ops->release)
                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
                 srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);

## Releases the srcu lock here and then goes on to grab the spin_lock.

                 spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
                 /*
                  * Can not use list_del_rcu() since __mmu_notifier_release
                  * can delete it before we hold the lock.
                  */
                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
                 spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);

While in mmu_notifier_release() we hold it until the node(s) are deleted from the
list :
         /*
          * SRCU here will block mmu_notifier_unregister until
          * ->release returns.
          */
         id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
         hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist)
                 /*
                  * If ->release runs before mmu_notifier_unregister it must be
                  * handled, as it's the only way for the driver to flush all
                  * existing sptes and stop the driver from establishing any more
                  * sptes before all the pages in the mm are freed.
                  */
                 if (mn->ops->release)
                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);

         spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
         while (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list))) {
                 mn = hlist_entry(mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list.first,
                                  struct mmu_notifier,
                                  hlist);
                 /*
                  * We arrived before mmu_notifier_unregister so
                  * mmu_notifier_unregister will do nothing other than to wait
                  * for ->release to finish and for mmu_notifier_unregister to
                  * return.
                  */
                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
         }
         spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
         srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);

## The lock is release only after the deletion of the node.

Both are followed by a synchronize_srcu(). Now, I am wondering if the unregister path
could potentially miss SRCU read lock held in _release() path and go onto finish the
synchronize_srcu before the item is deleted ? May be we should do the read_unlock
after the deletion of the node in _unregister (like we do in the _release()) ?

>
> Doesn't [2/2] solve the exact same issue (that the release method cannot
> be called twice in parallel)?

Not really. This could be a race between a release() and one of the other notifier
callbacks. e.g, In [0], we were hitting a use-after-free in kvm_unmap_hva() where,
the unregister could have succeeded and released the KVM.


[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/febea966-3767-21ff-3c40-1a76d1399138@suse.de

In effect this all could be due to the same reason, the synchronize in unregister
missing another reader.

Suzuki

>
> Thanks.
>
Paul E. McKenney April 26, 2017, 4:17 p.m. UTC | #4
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:03:44PM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 25/04/17 19:49, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >2017-04-24 11:10+0100, Suzuki K Poulose:
> >>The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
> >>of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
> >>tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
> >>There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
> >>called more than once via two different paths, which could end
> >>up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
> >>
> >>e.g:
> >>
> >>thread A                                        thread B
> >>-------                                         --------------
> >>
> >> get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
> >> do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
> >> exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
> >> exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
> >> mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
> >>  kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
> >>  ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
> >>                                                  spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
> >>                                                kvm_arch_free_kvm()
> >>   *** use after free of kvm ***
> >
> >I don't understand this race ...
> >a piece of code in mmu_notifier_unregister() says:
> >
> >  	/*
> >  	 * Wait for any running method to finish, of course including
> >  	 * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_release instead of us.
> >  	 */
> >  	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
> >
> >and code before that removes the notifier from the list, so it cannot be
> >called after we pass this point.  mmu_notifier_release() does roughly
> >the same and explains it as:
> >
> >  	/*
> >  	 * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release from returning to
> >  	 * exit_mmap (which would proceed with freeing all pages in the mm)
> >  	 * until the ->release method returns, if it was invoked by
> >  	 * mmu_notifier_unregister.
> >  	 *
> >  	 * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one mm_count
> >  	 * is held by exit_mmap.
> >  	 */
> >  	synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
> >
> >The call of mmu_notifier->release is protected by srcu in both cases and
> >while it seems possible that mmu_notifier->release would be called
> >twice, I don't see a combination that could result in use-after-free
> >from mmu_notifier_release after mmu_notifier_unregister() has returned.
> 
> Thanks for bringing it up. Even I am wondering why this is triggered ! (But it
> does get triggered for sure !!)
> 
> The only difference I can spot with _unregister & _release paths are the way
> we use src_read_lock across the deletion of the entry from the list.
> 
> In mmu_notifier_unregister() we do :
> 
>                 id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>                 /*
>                  * exit_mmap will block in mmu_notifier_release to guarantee
>                  * that ->release is called before freeing the pages.
>                  */
>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
>                 srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> 
> ## Releases the srcu lock here and then goes on to grab the spin_lock.
> 
>                 spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>                 /*
>                  * Can not use list_del_rcu() since __mmu_notifier_release
>                  * can delete it before we hold the lock.
>                  */
>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>                 spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
> 
> While in mmu_notifier_release() we hold it until the node(s) are deleted from the
> list :
>         /*
>          * SRCU here will block mmu_notifier_unregister until
>          * ->release returns.
>          */
>         id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>         hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist)
>                 /*
>                  * If ->release runs before mmu_notifier_unregister it must be
>                  * handled, as it's the only way for the driver to flush all
>                  * existing sptes and stop the driver from establishing any more
>                  * sptes before all the pages in the mm are freed.
>                  */
>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
> 
>         spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>         while (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list))) {
>                 mn = hlist_entry(mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list.first,
>                                  struct mmu_notifier,
>                                  hlist);
>                 /*
>                  * We arrived before mmu_notifier_unregister so
>                  * mmu_notifier_unregister will do nothing other than to wait
>                  * for ->release to finish and for mmu_notifier_unregister to
>                  * return.
>                  */
>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>         }
>         spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>         srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> 
> ## The lock is release only after the deletion of the node.
> 
> Both are followed by a synchronize_srcu(). Now, I am wondering if the unregister path
> could potentially miss SRCU read lock held in _release() path and go onto finish the
> synchronize_srcu before the item is deleted ? May be we should do the read_unlock
> after the deletion of the node in _unregister (like we do in the _release()) ?
> 
> >
> >Doesn't [2/2] solve the exact same issue (that the release method cannot
> >be called twice in parallel)?
> 
> Not really. This could be a race between a release() and one of the other notifier
> callbacks. e.g, In [0], we were hitting a use-after-free in kvm_unmap_hva() where,
> the unregister could have succeeded and released the KVM.
> 
> 
> [0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/febea966-3767-21ff-3c40-1a76d1399138@suse.de
> 
> In effect this all could be due to the same reason, the synchronize in unregister
> missing another reader.

If this is at all reproducible, I suggest use of ftrace or event tracing
to work out exactly what is happening.

							Thanx, Paul
Suzuki K Poulose April 28, 2017, 5:20 p.m. UTC | #5
On 26/04/17 17:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 25/04/17 19:49, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2017-04-24 11:10+0100, Suzuki K Poulose:
>>> The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
>>> of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
>>> tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
>>> There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
>>> called more than once via two different paths, which could end
>>> up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
>>>
>>> e.g:
>>>
>>> thread A                                        thread B
>>> -------                                         --------------
>>>
>>>  get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
>>>  do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
>>>  exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
>>>  exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>>  mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
>>>   kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
>>>   ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
>>>                                                   spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>>                                                 kvm_arch_free_kvm()
>>>    *** use after free of kvm ***
>>
>> I don't understand this race ...
>> a piece of code in mmu_notifier_unregister() says:
>>
>>       /*
>>        * Wait for any running method to finish, of course including
>>        * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_release instead of us.
>>        */
>>       synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>>
>> and code before that removes the notifier from the list, so it cannot be
>> called after we pass this point.  mmu_notifier_release() does roughly
>> the same and explains it as:
>>
>>       /*
>>        * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release from returning to
>>        * exit_mmap (which would proceed with freeing all pages in the mm)
>>        * until the ->release method returns, if it was invoked by
>>        * mmu_notifier_unregister.
>>        *
>>        * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one mm_count
>>        * is held by exit_mmap.
>>        */
>>       synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>>
>> The call of mmu_notifier->release is protected by srcu in both cases and
>> while it seems possible that mmu_notifier->release would be called
>> twice, I don't see a combination that could result in use-after-free
>> from mmu_notifier_release after mmu_notifier_unregister() has returned.
>
> Thanks for bringing it up. Even I am wondering why this is triggered ! (But it
> does get triggered for sure !!)
>
> The only difference I can spot with _unregister & _release paths are the way
> we use src_read_lock across the deletion of the entry from the list.
>
> In mmu_notifier_unregister() we do :
>
>                 id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>                 /*
>                  * exit_mmap will block in mmu_notifier_release to guarantee
>                  * that ->release is called before freeing the pages.
>                  */
>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
>                 srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
>
> ## Releases the srcu lock here and then goes on to grab the spin_lock.
>
>                 spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>                 /*
>                  * Can not use list_del_rcu() since __mmu_notifier_release
>                  * can delete it before we hold the lock.
>                  */
>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>                 spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>
> While in mmu_notifier_release() we hold it until the node(s) are deleted from the
> list :
>         /*
>          * SRCU here will block mmu_notifier_unregister until
>          * ->release returns.
>          */
>         id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>         hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist)
>                 /*
>                  * If ->release runs before mmu_notifier_unregister it must be
>                  * handled, as it's the only way for the driver to flush all
>                  * existing sptes and stop the driver from establishing any more
>                  * sptes before all the pages in the mm are freed.
>                  */
>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
>
>         spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>         while (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list))) {
>                 mn = hlist_entry(mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list.first,
>                                  struct mmu_notifier,
>                                  hlist);
>                 /*
>                  * We arrived before mmu_notifier_unregister so
>                  * mmu_notifier_unregister will do nothing other than to wait
>                  * for ->release to finish and for mmu_notifier_unregister to
>                  * return.
>                  */
>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>         }
>         spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>         srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
>
> ## The lock is release only after the deletion of the node.
>
> Both are followed by a synchronize_srcu(). Now, I am wondering if the unregister path
> could potentially miss SRCU read lock held in _release() path and go onto finish the
> synchronize_srcu before the item is deleted ? May be we should do the read_unlock
> after the deletion of the node in _unregister (like we do in the _release()) ?

I haven't been able to reproduce the mmu_notifier race condition, which leads to KVM
free, reported at [1]. I will leave it running (with tracepoints/ftrace) over the
weekend.

>
>>
>> Doesn't [2/2] solve the exact same issue (that the release method cannot
>> be called twice in parallel)?
>
> Not really. This could be a race between a release() and one of the other notifier
> callbacks. e.g, In [0], we were hitting a use-after-free in kvm_unmap_hva() where,
> the unregister could have succeeded and released the KVM.

But I can reproduce this problem [0], and we need the [2/2] for arm/arm64.

[0] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/febea966-3767-21ff-3c40-1a76d1399138@suse.de
[1] http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAAeHK+x8udHKq9xa1zkTO6ax5E8Dk32HYWfaT05FMchL2cr48g@mail.gmail.com


Thanks
Suzuki
Suzuki K Poulose May 3, 2017, 1:13 p.m. UTC | #6
On 28/04/17 18:20, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 26/04/17 17:03, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 25/04/17 19:49, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> 2017-04-24 11:10+0100, Suzuki K Poulose:
>>>> The KVM uses mmu_notifier (wherever available) to keep track
>>>> of the changes to the mm of the guest. The guest shadow page
>>>> tables are released when the VM exits via mmu_notifier->ops.release().
>>>> There is a rare chance that the mmu_notifier->release could be
>>>> called more than once via two different paths, which could end
>>>> up in use-after-free of kvm instance (such as [0]).
>>>>
>>>> e.g:
>>>>
>>>> thread A                                        thread B
>>>> -------                                         --------------
>>>>
>>>>  get_signal->                                   kvm_destroy_vm()->
>>>>  do_exit->                                        mmu_notifier_unregister->
>>>>  exit_mm->                                        kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->
>>>>  exit_mmap->                                      spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>>>  mmu_notifier_release->                           ....
>>>>   kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all()->                   .....
>>>>   ... spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock)                   .....
>>>>                                                   spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
>>>>                                                 kvm_arch_free_kvm()
>>>>    *** use after free of kvm ***
>>>
>>> I don't understand this race ...
>>> a piece of code in mmu_notifier_unregister() says:
>>>
>>>       /*
>>>        * Wait for any running method to finish, of course including
>>>        * ->release if it was run by mmu_notifier_release instead of us.
>>>        */
>>>       synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>>>
>>> and code before that removes the notifier from the list, so it cannot be
>>> called after we pass this point.  mmu_notifier_release() does roughly
>>> the same and explains it as:
>>>
>>>       /*
>>>        * synchronize_srcu here prevents mmu_notifier_release from returning to
>>>        * exit_mmap (which would proceed with freeing all pages in the mm)
>>>        * until the ->release method returns, if it was invoked by
>>>        * mmu_notifier_unregister.
>>>        *
>>>        * The mmu_notifier_mm can't go away from under us because one mm_count
>>>        * is held by exit_mmap.
>>>        */
>>>       synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
>>>
>>> The call of mmu_notifier->release is protected by srcu in both cases and
>>> while it seems possible that mmu_notifier->release would be called
>>> twice, I don't see a combination that could result in use-after-free
>>> from mmu_notifier_release after mmu_notifier_unregister() has returned.
>>
>> Thanks for bringing it up. Even I am wondering why this is triggered ! (But it
>> does get triggered for sure !!)
>>
>> The only difference I can spot with _unregister & _release paths are the way
>> we use src_read_lock across the deletion of the entry from the list.
>>
>> In mmu_notifier_unregister() we do :
>>
>>                 id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>>                 /*
>>                  * exit_mmap will block in mmu_notifier_release to guarantee
>>                  * that ->release is called before freeing the pages.
>>                  */
>>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
>>                 srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
>>
>> ## Releases the srcu lock here and then goes on to grab the spin_lock.
>>
>>                 spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>>                 /*
>>                  * Can not use list_del_rcu() since __mmu_notifier_release
>>                  * can delete it before we hold the lock.
>>                  */
>>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>>                 spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>>
>> While in mmu_notifier_release() we hold it until the node(s) are deleted from the
>> list :
>>         /*
>>          * SRCU here will block mmu_notifier_unregister until
>>          * ->release returns.
>>          */
>>         id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
>>         hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(mn, &mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list, hlist)
>>                 /*
>>                  * If ->release runs before mmu_notifier_unregister it must be
>>                  * handled, as it's the only way for the driver to flush all
>>                  * existing sptes and stop the driver from establishing any more
>>                  * sptes before all the pages in the mm are freed.
>>                  */
>>                 if (mn->ops->release)
>>                         mn->ops->release(mn, mm);
>>
>>         spin_lock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>>         while (unlikely(!hlist_empty(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list))) {
>>                 mn = hlist_entry(mm->mmu_notifier_mm->list.first,
>>                                  struct mmu_notifier,
>>                                  hlist);
>>                 /*
>>                  * We arrived before mmu_notifier_unregister so
>>                  * mmu_notifier_unregister will do nothing other than to wait
>>                  * for ->release to finish and for mmu_notifier_unregister to
>>                  * return.
>>                  */
>>                 hlist_del_init_rcu(&mn->hlist);
>>         }
>>         spin_unlock(&mm->mmu_notifier_mm->lock);
>>         srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
>>
>> ## The lock is release only after the deletion of the node.
>>
>> Both are followed by a synchronize_srcu(). Now, I am wondering if the unregister path
>> could potentially miss SRCU read lock held in _release() path and go onto finish the
>> synchronize_srcu before the item is deleted ? May be we should do the read_unlock
>> after the deletion of the node in _unregister (like we do in the _release()) ?
>
> I haven't been able to reproduce the mmu_notifier race condition, which leads to KVM
> free, reported at [1]. I will leave it running (with tracepoints/ftrace) over the
> weekend.
>

I couldn't reproduce the proposed "mmu_notifier race" reported in [0].
However I found some other use-after-free cases in the unmap_stage2_range()
code due to the introduction of cond_resched_lock(). It may be just that the
IP reported in [0] was for wrong line of code ? i.e, arch_spin_is_locked instead
of unmap_stage2_range ?
Anyways, I will send a new version of the patches in a separate series.

[0] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=149201399018791&w=2

Suzuki
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/include/linux/kvm_host.h b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
index d025074..561e968 100644
--- a/include/linux/kvm_host.h
+++ b/include/linux/kvm_host.h
@@ -424,6 +424,7 @@  struct kvm {
 	struct mmu_notifier mmu_notifier;
 	unsigned long mmu_notifier_seq;
 	long mmu_notifier_count;
+	struct rcu_head mmu_notifier_rcu;
 #endif
 	long tlbs_dirty;
 	struct list_head devices;
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 88257b3..2c3fdd4 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -471,6 +471,7 @@  static void kvm_mmu_notifier_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
 	idx = srcu_read_lock(&kvm->srcu);
 	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
 	srcu_read_unlock(&kvm->srcu, idx);
+	kvm_put_kvm(kvm);
 }
 
 static const struct mmu_notifier_ops kvm_mmu_notifier_ops = {
@@ -486,8 +487,46 @@  static const struct mmu_notifier_ops kvm_mmu_notifier_ops = {
 
 static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
+	int rc;
 	kvm->mmu_notifier.ops = &kvm_mmu_notifier_ops;
-	return mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
+	rc = mmu_notifier_register(&kvm->mmu_notifier, current->mm);
+	/*
+	 * We hold a reference to KVM here to make sure that the KVM
+	 * doesn't get free'd before ops->release() completes.
+	 */
+	if (!rc)
+		kvm_get_kvm(kvm);
+	return rc;
+}
+
+static void kvm_free_vm_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
+{
+	struct kvm *kvm = container_of(rcu, struct kvm, mmu_notifier_rcu);
+	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
+}
+
+static void kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	/*
+	 * We hold a reference to kvm instance for mmu_notifier and is
+	 * only released when ops->release() is called via exit_mmap path.
+	 * So, when we reach here ops->release() has been called already, which
+	 * flushes the shadow page tables. Hence there is no need to call the
+	 * release() again when we unregister the notifier. However, we need
+	 * to delay freeing up the kvm until the release() completes, since
+	 * we could reach here via :
+	 *  kvm_mmu_notifier_release() -> kvm_put_kvm() -> kvm_destroy_vm()
+	 */
+	mmu_notifier_unregister_no_release(&kvm->mmu_notifier, kvm->mm);
+}
+
+static void kvm_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Wait until the mmu_notifier has finished the release().
+	 * See comments above in kvm_flush_shadow_mmu.
+	 */
+	mmu_notifier_call_srcu(&kvm->mmu_notifier_rcu, kvm_free_vm_rcu);
 }
 
 #else  /* !(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER && KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER) */
@@ -497,6 +536,16 @@  static int kvm_init_mmu_notifier(struct kvm *kvm)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
+}
+
+static void kvm_free_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
+}
+
 #endif /* CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER && KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER */
 
 static struct kvm_memslots *kvm_alloc_memslots(void)
@@ -733,18 +782,14 @@  static void kvm_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
 		kvm->buses[i] = NULL;
 	}
 	kvm_coalesced_mmio_free(kvm);
-#if defined(CONFIG_MMU_NOTIFIER) && defined(KVM_ARCH_WANT_MMU_NOTIFIER)
-	mmu_notifier_unregister(&kvm->mmu_notifier, kvm->mm);
-#else
-	kvm_arch_flush_shadow_all(kvm);
-#endif
+	kvm_flush_shadow_mmu(kvm);
 	kvm_arch_destroy_vm(kvm);
 	kvm_destroy_devices(kvm);
 	for (i = 0; i < KVM_ADDRESS_SPACE_NUM; i++)
 		kvm_free_memslots(kvm, kvm->memslots[i]);
 	cleanup_srcu_struct(&kvm->irq_srcu);
 	cleanup_srcu_struct(&kvm->srcu);
-	kvm_arch_free_vm(kvm);
+	kvm_free_vm(kvm);
 	preempt_notifier_dec();
 	hardware_disable_all();
 	mmdrop(mm);