Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce

From	Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce
Date	2017-08-28 06:50 +0200
Message-ID	<ujk9P-VX-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <uhj8d-49K-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <uhjhT-4dB-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <uhsXU-2lI-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <uhx1v-5kg-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <ujcYG-4GL-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 10:02:20PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 04:06:24PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that it would be better to do the anon_inode_getfd()
> > call before the kvm_get_kvm() call, and go to the fail label if it
> > fails.
> 
> And what happens if another thread does close() on the (guessed) fd?

Chaos ensues, but mostly because we don't have proper mutual exclusion
on the modifications to the list.  I'll add a mutex_lock/unlock to
kvm_spapr_tce_release() and move the anon_inode_getfd() call inside
the mutex.

It looks like the other possible uses of the fd (mmap, and passing it
as a parameter to the KVM_DEV_VFIO_GROUP_SET_SPAPR_TCE ioctl on a KVM
device fd) are safe.

Thanks,
Paul.

Thread

Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-08-27 23:10 +0200
  Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> - 2017-08-28 06:50 +0200
    Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-08-28 07:30 +0200
      Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> - 2017-08-28 08:10 +0200
      Re: Re: [PATCH] fix memory leak on kvm_vm_ioctl_create_spapr_tce Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-08-28 13:40 +0200

csiph-web