arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
kvm_async_pf_queue_task() can incorrectly try to kfree() a node
allocated on the stack of kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule().
This occurs when a task requests a PF while another task's PF request
with the same token is still pending. Since the token is derived from
the (u32)address in exc_page_fault(), two different tasks can generate
the same token.
Currently, kvm_async_pf_queue_task() assumes that any entry found in the
list is a dummy entry and tries to kfree() it. To fix this, add a flag
to the node structure to distinguish stack-allocated nodes, and only
kfree() the node if it is a dummy entry.
Signed-off-by: Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@redhat.com>
---
v2:
Based on Vitaly's comment,
* Update comment in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
* Set n->dummy false in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
* Add explanation about what token is in commit message.
v1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/87cy4vlmv8.fsf@redhat.com/
arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
index df78ddee0abb..37dc8465e0f5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
@@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct kvm_task_sleep_node {
struct swait_queue_head wq;
u32 token;
int cpu;
+ bool dummy;
};
static struct kvm_task_sleep_head {
@@ -120,15 +121,26 @@ static bool kvm_async_pf_queue_task(u32 token, struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n)
raw_spin_lock(&b->lock);
e = _find_apf_task(b, token);
if (e) {
- /* dummy entry exist -> wake up was delivered ahead of PF */
- hlist_del(&e->link);
+ struct kvm_task_sleep_node *dummy = NULL;
+
+ /*
+ * The entry can either be a 'dummy' entry (which is put on the
+ * list when wake-up happens ahead of APF handling completion)
+ * or a token from another task which should not be touched.
+ */
+ if (e->dummy) {
+ hlist_del(&e->link);
+ dummy = e;
+ }
+
raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
- kfree(e);
+ kfree(dummy);
return false;
}
n->token = token;
n->cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ n->dummy = false;
init_swait_queue_head(&n->wq);
hlist_add_head(&n->link, &b->list);
raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
@@ -231,6 +243,7 @@ static void kvm_async_pf_task_wake(u32 token)
}
dummy->token = token;
dummy->cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ dummy->dummy = true;
init_swait_queue_head(&dummy->wq);
hlist_add_head(&dummy->link, &b->list);
dummy = NULL;
base-commit: 416f99c3b16f582a3fc6d64a1f77f39d94b76de5
--
2.52.0
Queued, thanks. Paolo
Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@redhat.com> writes:
> kvm_async_pf_queue_task() can incorrectly try to kfree() a node
> allocated on the stack of kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule().
>
> This occurs when a task requests a PF while another task's PF request
> with the same token is still pending. Since the token is derived from
> the (u32)address in exc_page_fault(), two different tasks can generate
> the same token.
>
> Currently, kvm_async_pf_queue_task() assumes that any entry found in the
> list is a dummy entry and tries to kfree() it. To fix this, add a flag
> to the node structure to distinguish stack-allocated nodes, and only
> kfree() the node if it is a dummy entry.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@redhat.com>
> ---
>
> v2:
> Based on Vitaly's comment,
> * Update comment in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
> * Set n->dummy false in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
> * Add explanation about what token is in commit message.
>
> v1:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/87cy4vlmv8.fsf@redhat.com/
>
>
> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> index df78ddee0abb..37dc8465e0f5 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct kvm_task_sleep_node {
> struct swait_queue_head wq;
> u32 token;
> int cpu;
> + bool dummy;
> };
>
> static struct kvm_task_sleep_head {
> @@ -120,15 +121,26 @@ static bool kvm_async_pf_queue_task(u32 token, struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n)
> raw_spin_lock(&b->lock);
> e = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> if (e) {
> - /* dummy entry exist -> wake up was delivered ahead of PF */
> - hlist_del(&e->link);
> + struct kvm_task_sleep_node *dummy = NULL;
> +
> + /*
> + * The entry can either be a 'dummy' entry (which is put on the
> + * list when wake-up happens ahead of APF handling completion)
> + * or a token from another task which should not be touched.
> + */
> + if (e->dummy) {
> + hlist_del(&e->link);
> + dummy = e;
> + }
> +
> raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> - kfree(e);
> + kfree(dummy);
> return false;
> }
>
> n->token = token;
> n->cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + n->dummy = false;
> init_swait_queue_head(&n->wq);
> hlist_add_head(&n->link, &b->list);
> raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> @@ -231,6 +243,7 @@ static void kvm_async_pf_task_wake(u32 token)
> }
> dummy->token = token;
> dummy->cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + dummy->dummy = true;
> init_swait_queue_head(&dummy->wq);
> hlist_add_head(&dummy->link, &b->list);
> dummy = NULL;
>
> base-commit: 416f99c3b16f582a3fc6d64a1f77f39d94b76de5
Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
--
Vitaly
On Wed, Dec 10, 2025 at 03:07:34PM +0100, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > kvm_async_pf_queue_task() can incorrectly try to kfree() a node
> > allocated on the stack of kvm_async_pf_task_wait_schedule().
> >
> > This occurs when a task requests a PF while another task's PF request
> > with the same token is still pending. Since the token is derived from
> > the (u32)address in exc_page_fault(), two different tasks can generate
> > the same token.
> >
> > Currently, kvm_async_pf_queue_task() assumes that any entry found in the
> > list is a dummy entry and tries to kfree() it. To fix this, add a flag
> > to the node structure to distinguish stack-allocated nodes, and only
> > kfree() the node if it is a dummy entry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ryosuke Yasuoka <ryasuoka@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >
> > v2:
> > Based on Vitaly's comment,
> > * Update comment in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
> > * Set n->dummy false in kvm_async_pf_queue_task
> > * Add explanation about what token is in commit message.
> >
> > v1:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/87cy4vlmv8.fsf@redhat.com/
> >
> >
> > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> > index df78ddee0abb..37dc8465e0f5 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c
> > @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ struct kvm_task_sleep_node {
> > struct swait_queue_head wq;
> > u32 token;
> > int cpu;
> > + bool dummy;
> > };
> >
> > static struct kvm_task_sleep_head {
> > @@ -120,15 +121,26 @@ static bool kvm_async_pf_queue_task(u32 token, struct kvm_task_sleep_node *n)
> > raw_spin_lock(&b->lock);
> > e = _find_apf_task(b, token);
> > if (e) {
> > - /* dummy entry exist -> wake up was delivered ahead of PF */
> > - hlist_del(&e->link);
> > + struct kvm_task_sleep_node *dummy = NULL;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The entry can either be a 'dummy' entry (which is put on the
> > + * list when wake-up happens ahead of APF handling completion)
> > + * or a token from another task which should not be touched.
> > + */
> > + if (e->dummy) {
> > + hlist_del(&e->link);
> > + dummy = e;
> > + }
> > +
> > raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> > - kfree(e);
> > + kfree(dummy);
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > n->token = token;
> > n->cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + n->dummy = false;
> > init_swait_queue_head(&n->wq);
> > hlist_add_head(&n->link, &b->list);
> > raw_spin_unlock(&b->lock);
> > @@ -231,6 +243,7 @@ static void kvm_async_pf_task_wake(u32 token)
> > }
> > dummy->token = token;
> > dummy->cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + dummy->dummy = true;
> > init_swait_queue_head(&dummy->wq);
> > hlist_add_head(&dummy->link, &b->list);
> > dummy = NULL;
> >
> > base-commit: 416f99c3b16f582a3fc6d64a1f77f39d94b76de5
>
> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>
> --
> Vitaly
Vitaly,
Thank you for your review.
Hi Paolo,
Just a gentle reminder regarding this patch. It has received a
Reviewed-by tag from Vitaly.
Since this patch fixes a bug encountered by our customers, we would
appreciate it if you could consider applying it.
Let me know if there is anything else needed on my end!
Regards,
Ryosuke
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.