Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) 
to consider:

New issues:
- [High] Concurrent module unload and kexec execution causes a Time-of-Check to 
Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) Use-After-Free/NULL pointer dereference.

Pre-existing issues:
- [High] vmbus_initiate_unload() ignores vmbus_post_msg() errors, hanging kexec 
indefinitely on wait_for_completion().
--

--- Patch [2]: [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64/hyperv: Add kexec handler using 
machine_shutdown hook ---
commit 49c11bb6b5ac02d64fdd78fc6417342ccc8089ed
Author: Shradha Gupta <[email protected]>

arm64/hyperv: Add kexec handler using machine_shutdown hook

This patch provides the ARM64 override of hv_setup_kexec_handler() and
hv_remove_kexec_handler(). It wires the registered hv_kexec_handler to
arm64_pre_smp_shutdown_hook to perform VMBus teardown and disable SynIC
during kexec.

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c b/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c
> index 4fdc26ade1d74..4176175060d30 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/hyperv/mshyperv.c

[ ... ]

> @@ -15,10 +15,47 @@
>  #include <linux/errno.h>
>  #include <linux/version.h>
>  #include <linux/cpuhotplug.h>
> +#include <linux/kexec.h>
>  #include <asm/mshyperv.h>
> +#include <asm/system_misc.h>
>  
>  static bool hyperv_initialized;
>  
> +/*
> + * Kexec/shutdown handler for ARM64 Hyper-V guests.
> + *
> + * On x86, hv_machine_shutdown() overrides machine_ops.shutdown and
> + * runs after device_shutdown() and cpu_hotplug_enable(). ARM64 uses
> + * the arm64_pre_smp_shutdown_hook to achieve the same ordering.
> + *
> + * hv_kexec_handler() (set by vmbus_drv.c) performs:
> + *   1. vmbus_initiate_unload(false) - sends CHANNELMSG_UNLOAD
> + *   2. cpuhp_remove_state(hyperv_cpuhp_online) - disables SynIC per CPU
> + *
> + * By running after device_shutdown(), PCI drivers (NVMe, MANA) can
> + * send PCI_DELETE_INTERRUPT_MESSAGE and clean up MMIO/interrupt
> + * mappings before VMBus channels are force-closed by UNLOAD.
> + */
> +static void (*hv_kexec_handler)(void);
> +
> +static void hv_machine_shutdown(void)
> +{
> +     if (kexec_in_progress && hv_kexec_handler)
> +             hv_kexec_handler();

[Severity: High]
Is there a race condition here if the hv_vmbus module is unloaded concurrently?

If sys_delete_module() calls hv_remove_kexec_handler(), it clears
hv_kexec_handler to NULL. If that happens after the check here but before
execution, could this jump to a NULL pointer? Or if the module memory is freed
before execution, could this cause a use-after-free panic? A simple READ_ONCE()
would prevent a compiler double-fetch, but might not prevent the underlying
use-after-free without proper synchronization like RCU or a mutex.

[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but enabling this path on ARM64 exposes the
system to a potential indefinite hang during kexec.

When hv_kexec_handler() calls vmbus_initiate_unload(false), it ignores errors
from vmbus_post_msg() and unconditionally waits for completion:

drivers/hv/channel_mgmt.c:vmbus_initiate_unload() {
        ...
        vmbus_post_msg(&hdr, sizeof(struct vmbus_channel_message_header),
                       !crash);

        /*
         * vmbus_initiate_unload() is also called on crash and the crash can be
         * happening in an interrupt context, where scheduling is impossible.
         */
        if (!crash)
                wait_for_completion(&vmbus_connection.unload_event);
        ...
}

If vmbus_post_msg() fails (e.g., returning -ENOBUFS if the hypervisor is out
of buffers), the unload message is never sent, the completion is never
signaled, and the thread waits forever. Is there a way to handle this error
instead of hanging the reboot process?

> +}
> +
> +void hv_setup_kexec_handler(void (*handler)(void))
> +{
> +     hv_kexec_handler = handler;
> +     arm64_pre_smp_shutdown_hook = hv_machine_shutdown;
> +}
> +
> +void hv_remove_kexec_handler(void)
> +{
> +     arm64_pre_smp_shutdown_hook = NULL;
> +     hv_kexec_handler = NULL;
> +}

-- 
Sashiko AI review ยท 
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=2

Reply via email to