On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 04:11:13PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 02:36:56PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:

quoted

During the review of "[PATCH] vsock/virtio: Initialize core virtio vsock
before registering the driver", Stefan pointed out some possible issues
in the .probe() and .remove() callbacks of the virtio-vsock driver.

This series tries to solve these issues:
- Patch 1 adds RCU critical sections to avoid use-after-free of
  'the_virtio_vsock' pointer.
- Patch 2 stops workers before to call vdev->config->reset(vdev) to
  be sure that no one is accessing the device.
- Patch 3 moves the works flush at the end of the .remove() to avoid
  use-after-free of 'vsock' object.

v2:
- Patch 1: use RCU to protect 'the_virtio_vsock' pointer
- Patch 2: no changes
- Patch 3: flush works only at the end of .remove()
- Removed patch 4 because virtqueue_detach_unused_buf() returns all the buffers
  allocated.

v1: https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10964733/

This looks good to me.

Thanks for the review!

Did you run any stress tests?  For example an SMP guest constantly
connecting and sending packets together with a script that
hotplug/unplugs vhost-vsock-pci from the host side.

Yes, I started an SMP guest (-smp 4 -monitor tcp:127.0.0.1:1234,server,nowait)
and I run these scripts to stress the .probe()/.remove() path:

- guest
  while true; do
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock -l 4321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock -l 5321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock -l 6321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock -l 7321 > /dev/null &
      wait
  done

- host
  while true; do
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock 3 4321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock 3 5321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock 3 6321 > /dev/null &
      cat /dev/urandom | nc-vsock 3 7321 > /dev/null &
      sleep 2
      echo "device_del v1" | nc 127.0.0.1 1234
      sleep 1
      echo "device_add vhost-vsock-pci,id=v1,guest-cid=3" | nc 127.0.0.1 1234
      sleep 1
  done

Do you think is enough or is better to have a test more accurate?

Thanks,
Stefano