linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and write operations

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200221003035.GC2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72>
Date:   Thu, 20 Feb 2020 16:30:35 -0800
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
To:     "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        Suraj Jitindar Singh <surajjs@...zon.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and
 write operations

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52:33PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:08:57PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > now it becomes possible to use it like: 
> > 	...
> > 	void *p = kvmalloc(PAGE_SIZE);
> > 	kvfree_rcu(p);
> > 	...
> > also have a look at the example in the mm/list_lru.c diff.
> 
> I certainly like the interface, thanks!  I'm going to be pushing
> patches to fix this using ext4_kvfree_array_rcu() since there are a
> number of bugs in ext4's online resizing which appear to be hitting
> multiple cloud providers (with reports from both AWS and GCP) and I
> want something which can be easily backported to stable kernels.
> 
> But once kvfree_rcu() hits mainline, I'll switch ext4 to use it, since
> your kvfree_rcu() is definitely more efficient than my expedient
> jury-rig.
> 
> I don't feel entirely competent to review the implementation, but I do
> have one question.  It looks like the rcutiny implementation of
> kfree_call_rcu() isn't going to do the right thing with kvfree_rcu(p).
> Am I missing something?

Good catch!  I believe that rcu_reclaim_tiny() would need to do
kvfree() instead of its current kfree().

Vlad, anything I am missing here?

							Thanx, Paul

> > diff --git a/include/linux/rcutiny.h b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > index 045c28b71f4f..a12ecc1645fa 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rcutiny.h
> > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ static inline void synchronize_rcu_expedited(void)
> >         synchronize_rcu();
> >  }
> > 
> > -static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func)
> > +static inline void kfree_call_rcu(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func, void *ptr)
> >  {
> >         call_rcu(head, func);
> >  }
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 					- Ted