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  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]
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:08:41 +0100
From:   Christoph Hellwig <>
To:     Zhang Yi <>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <>,,,,,,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/7] ext4: fix race between blkdev_releasepage()
 and ext4_put_super()

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 04:00:48PM +0800, Zhang Yi wrote:
> Now, we use already use "if (bdev->bd_super)" to prevent call into
> ->bdev_try_to_free_page unless the super is alive, and the problem is
> bd_super becomes NULL concurrently after this check. So, IIUC, I think it's
> the same to switch to check the superblock is active or not. The acvive
> flag also could becomes inactive (raced by umount) after we call into
> bdev_try_to_free_page().


> In order to close this race, One solution is introduce a lock to synchronize
> the active state between kill_block_super() and blkdev_releasepage(), but
> the releasing page process have to try to acquire this lock in
> blkdev_releasepage() for each page, and the umount process still need to wait
> until the page release if some one invoke into ->bdev_try_to_free_page().
> I think this solution may affect performace and is not a good way.
> Think about it in depth, use percpu refcount seems have the smallest
> performance effect on blkdev_releasepage().
> If you don't like the refcount, maybe we could add synchronize_rcu_expedited()
> in ext4_put_super(), it also could prevent this race. Any suggestions?

I really don't like to put a lot of overhead into the core VFS and block
device code.  ext4/jbd does not own the block device inode and really
has no business controlling releasepage for it.  I suspect the right
answer might be to simply revert the commit that added this hook.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists