linux-kernel - Re: block: Check that queue is alive in blk_insert_cloned

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1107121120130.31381-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:24:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
cc:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	<linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"Manvanthara B. Puttashankar" <manvanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@...ibm.com>,
	"Seshagiri N. Ippili" <sesh17@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Subject: Re: block: Check that queue is alive in blk_insert_cloned_request()

On Mon, 11 Jul 2011, Vivek Goyal wrote:

> > > There's still the issue that Stefan Richter pointed out: The test for a 
> > > dead queue must be made _after_ acquiring the queue lock, not _before_.
> > 
> > Yes, quite important.
> > 
> > Jens, can you tweak the patch or should Roland send a v2?
> 
> I do not think that we should do queue dead check after taking a spinlock.
> The reason being that there are life time issues of two objects.
> 
> - Validity of request queue pointer
> - Validity of q->spin_lock pointer
> 
> If the dm has taken the reference to the request queue in the beginning
> then it can be sure request queue pointer is valid. But spin_lock might
> be coming from driver and might be in one of driver allocated structures.
> So it might happen that driver has called blk_cleanup_queue() and freed
> up structures which contained the spin lock.

Surely this is a bug in the design of the block layer?

> So if queue is not dead, we know that q->spin_lock is valid. I think
> only race present here is that whole operation is not atomic. First
> we check for queue not dead flag and then go on to acquire request
> queue lock. So this leaves a small window for race. I think I have
> seen other code written in such manner (__generic_make_request()). So
> it proably reasonably safe to do here too.

"Probably reasonably safe" = "unsafe".  The fact that it will usually
work out okay means that when it does fail, it will be very difficult
to track down.

It needs to be fixed _now_, when people are aware of the issue.  Not 
five years from now, when everybody has forgotten about it.

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/