Re: [PATCH 1/4] s390/vfio-ap: Fix leak of pinned NIB and registered NISC in vfio_ap_irq_enable()

Anthony Krowiak <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390,org.kernel.vger.stable
Message-ID <[email protected]>

On 8/24/26 12:57 PM, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> On 8/24/26 9:58 AM, Anthony Krowiak wrote:
>> The vfio_ap_irq_enable() function executes the PQAP(AQIC) instruction to
>> enable interrupts for an AP queue. A switch statement is used to examine
>> the status response code returned from the instruction to determine
>> whether it succeeded or failed and react accordingly. For the default case,
>> the vfio_ap_irq_disable function is invoked to disable interrupts for the
>> queue and clean up the AQIC resources (i.e., unpin the NIB and unregister
>> the NISC). There are a number of problems with this:
>>
>> 1. Neither the q->saved_iova nor q->saved_isc has been set, so the
>>     AQIC resources - assuming those values have been previously set - will
>>     be the NIB and NISC resources from a prior call; the NIB and NISC from
>>     the current call are therefore leaked.
>>
>> 2. Interrupts may never have been enabled. Sending a disable instruction to
>>     a queue that the hardware just told you is in a bad state (CHECKSTOPPED,
>>     DECONFIGURED, Q_NOT_AVAIL) is at best wasted work and at worst generates
>>     a further WARN_ONCE from inside vfio_ap_irq_disable's own default.
>>
>> 3. The hardware just rejected the new ap_aqic() enable attempt with an
>>     unexpected status. Disabling a previously-working IRQ config - assuming
>>     that is even possible - as a reaction to a failed enable attempt does
>>     not make sense; it is actively destructive, tearing down something that
>>     was working for no valid reason.
>>
>> The fix is to unregister the NISC and an unpin the NIB in the default case
>> of the switch statement.
>>
>> Fixes: ec89b55e3bce7 ("s390: ap: implement PAPQ AQIC interception in kernel")
>> Cc: [email protected]
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Krowiak <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>   drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> index 940c0ff668be..a46bf381ab72 100644
>> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
>> @@ -503,9 +503,14 @@ static struct ap_queue_status vfio_ap_irq_enable(struct vfio_ap_queue *q,
>>   		vfio_unpin_pages(&q->matrix_mdev->vdev, nib, 1);
>>   		break;
>>   	default:
>> -		pr_warn("%s: apqn %04x: response: %02x\n", __func__, q->apqn,
>> -			status.response_code);
>> -		vfio_ap_irq_disable(q);
>> +		pr_warn("%s: PQAP(AQIC) failed with response code %02x for apqn %04x\n",
>> +			__func__, status.response_code, q->apqn);
> LGTM, except Sashiko mentions the pr_warn here that you are updating has
> a pre-existing issue.
>
> Since you're touching it already, do you think it makes sense to switch
> to pr_warn_ratelimited with this patch?

I think it makes more sense to switch to VFIO_AP_DBF_WARN which all other
guest-triggered warning paths in  this function already use.

>
>> +		/* We could not modify IRQ settings: clear new configuration */
>> +		ret = kvm_s390_gisc_unregister(kvm, isc);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			VFIO_AP_DBF_WARN("%s: kvm_s390_gisc_unregister: rc=%d isc=%d, apqn=%#04x\n",
>> +					 __func__, ret, isc, q->apqn);
>> +		vfio_unpin_pages(&q->matrix_mdev->vdev, nib, 1);
>>   		break;
>>   	}
>>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.