linux-kernel - Re: Heads-up: 3.6.2 / 3.6.3 NFS server oops: 3.6.2+ regression? (also an unrelated ext4 data loss bug)

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: <87r4opw0og.fsf@spindle.srvr.nix>
Date:	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:36:15 +0100
From:	Nix <nix@...eri.org.uk>
To:	"Myklebust\, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
	"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Schumaker\, Bryan" <Bryan.Schumaker@...app.com>,
	Peng Tao <bergwolf@...il.com>,
	"gregkh\@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-nfs\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stanislav Kinsbursky <skinsbursky@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: Heads-up: 3.6.2 / 3.6.3 NFS server oops: 3.6.2+ regression? (also an unrelated ext4 data loss bug)

On 23 Oct 2012, nix@...eri.org.uk uttered the following:

> On 23 Oct 2012, Trond Myklebust spake thusly:
>> On Tue, 2012-10-23 at 12:46 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> Looks like there's some confusion about whether nsm_client_get() returns
>>> NULL or an error?
>>
>> nsm_client_get() looks extremely racy in the case where ln->nsm_users ==
>> 0.  Since we never recheck the value of ln->nsm_users after taking
>> nsm_create_mutex, what is stopping 2 different threads from both setting
>> ln->nsm_clnt and re-initialising ln->nsm_users?
>
> Yep. At the worst possible time:
>
> 	spin_lock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
> 	if (ln->nsm_users) {
> 		if (--ln->nsm_users)
> 			ln->nsm_clnt = NULL;
> (1)		shutdown = !ln->nsm_users;
> 	}
> 	spin_unlock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
>
> If a thread reinitializes nsm_users at point (1), after the assignment,
> we could well end up with ln->nsm_clnt NULL and shutdown false. A bit
> later, nsm_mon_unmon gets called with a NULL clnt, and boom.

Possible fix if so, utterly untested so far (will test when I can face
yet another reboot and fs-corruption-recovery-hell cycle, in a few
hours), may ruin performance, violate locking hierarchies, and consume
kittens:

diff --git a/fs/lockd/mon.c b/fs/lockd/mon.c
index e4fb3ba..da91cdf 100644
--- a/fs/lockd/mon.c
+++ b/fs/lockd/mon.c
@@ -98,7 +98,6 @@ static struct rpc_clnt *nsm_client_get(struct net *net)
 		spin_unlock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
 		goto out;
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
 
 	mutex_lock(&nsm_create_mutex);
 	clnt = nsm_create(net);
@@ -108,6 +107,7 @@ static struct rpc_clnt *nsm_client_get(struct net *net)
 		ln->nsm_users = 1;
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&nsm_create_mutex);
+	spin_unlock(&ln->nsm_clnt_lock);
 out:
 	return clnt;
 }

--
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/