Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] vhost: fix vq use after free on NUMA reallocation

[Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>]

Hi Chenbo,

On 9/14/22 03:05, Xia, Chenbo wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:03 PM
>> To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>; Xia, Chenbo
>> <chenbo.xia@intel.com>; Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] vhost: fix vq use after free on NUMA
>> reallocation
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 7/26/22 09:55, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7/25/22 22:32, David Marchand wrote:
>>>> translate_ring_addresses (via numa_realloc) may change a virtio device
>>>> and
>>>> virtio queue.
>>>> The virtqueue object must be refreshed before accessing the lock.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 04c27cb673b9 ("vhost: fix unsafe vring addresses modifications")
>>>> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    lib/vhost/vhost_user.c | 1 +
>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
>>>> index 4ad28bac45..91d40e32fc 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost_user.c
>>>> @@ -2596,6 +2596,7 @@ vhost_user_iotlb_msg(struct virtio_net **pdev,
>>>>                if (is_vring_iotlb(dev, vq, imsg)) {
>>>>                    rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->access_lock);
>>>>                    *pdev = dev = translate_ring_addresses(dev, i);
>>>> +                vq = dev->virtqueue[i];
>>>>                    rte_spinlock_unlock(&vq->access_lock);
>>>>                }
>>>>            }
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Maxime
>>
>> The bug this patch is fixing is being reproduced downstream.
>> It would be great it gets merged in main branch rapidly so that we can
>> perform the backport.
>>
>> Chenbo, are you planning a pull request for vhost/virtio in the next few
>> days? If not, should the main branch maintainer pick this single patch
>> directly and let the rest of the series more time for reviews?
> 
> Based on the status of all patches in the list, I guess PR will not happen
> this week. So it will be good if David/Thomas can directly pick up this.

OK, sounds good to me.

Thomas/David, is that good on your side?

Thanks,
Maxime

> Thanks,
> Chenbo
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Maxime
>