linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.10 16/16] rbd: drop an unsafe assertion

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: <20150225020812.149746297@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2015 18:10:08 -0800
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Olivier Bonvalet <ob@...vel.fr>,
	Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>, Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>,
	Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.10 16/16] rbd: drop an unsafe assertion

3.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>

commit 638c323c4d1f8eaf25224946e21ce8818f1bcee1 upstream.

Olivier Bonvalet reported having repeated crashes due to a failed
assertion he was hitting in rbd_img_obj_callback():

    Assertion failure in rbd_img_obj_callback() at line 2165:
	rbd_assert(which >= img_request->next_completion);

With a lot of help from Olivier with reproducing the problem
we were able to determine the object and image requests had
already been completed (and often freed) at the point the
assertion failed.

There was a great deal of discussion on the ceph-devel mailing list
about this.  The problem only arose when there were two (or more)
object requests in an image request, and the problem was always
seen when the second request was being completed.

The problem is due to a race in the window between setting the
"done" flag on an object request and checking the image request's
next completion value.  When the first object request completes, it
checks to see if its successor request is marked "done", and if
so, that request is also completed.  In the process, the image
request's next_completion value is updated to reflect that both
the first and second requests are completed.  By the time the
second request is able to check the next_completion value, it
has been set to a value *greater* than its own "which" value,
which caused an assertion to fail.

Fix this problem by skipping over any completion processing
unless the completing object request is the next one expected.
Test only for inequality (not >=), and eliminate the bad
assertion.

Tested-by: Olivier Bonvalet <ob@...vel.fr>
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@...aro.org>
Reviewed-by: Sage Weil <sage@...tank.com>
Reviewed-by: Ilya Dryomov <ilya.dryomov@...tank.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/block/rbd.c |    1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -2149,7 +2149,6 @@ static void rbd_img_obj_callback(struct
 	rbd_assert(img_request->obj_request_count > 0);
 	rbd_assert(which != BAD_WHICH);
 	rbd_assert(which < img_request->obj_request_count);
-	rbd_assert(which >= img_request->next_completion);

 	spin_lock_irq(&img_request->completion_lock);
 	if (which != img_request->next_completion)

--
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/