linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.9 12/64] md/raid5: fix a race condition in stripe batch

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: <20171003114229.473957643@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue,  3 Oct 2017 14:23:04 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.9 12/64] md/raid5: fix a race condition in stripe batch

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

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

From: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>

commit 3664847d95e60a9a943858b7800f8484669740fc upstream.

We have a race condition in below scenario, say have 3 continuous stripes, sh1,
sh2 and sh3, sh1 is the stripe_head of sh2 and sh3:

CPU1				CPU2				CPU3
handle_stripe(sh3)
				stripe_add_to_batch_list(sh3)
				-> lock(sh2, sh3)
				-> lock batch_lock(sh1)
				-> add sh3 to batch_list of sh1
				-> unlock batch_lock(sh1)
								clear_batch_ready(sh1)
								-> lock(sh1) and batch_lock(sh1)
								-> clear STRIPE_BATCH_READY for all stripes in batch_list
								-> unlock(sh1) and batch_lock(sh1)
->clear_batch_ready(sh3)
-->test_and_clear_bit(STRIPE_BATCH_READY, sh3)
--->return 0 as sh->batch == NULL
				-> sh3->batch_head = sh1
				-> unlock (sh2, sh3)

In CPU1, handle_stripe will continue handle sh3 even it's in batch stripe list
of sh1. By moving sh3->batch_head assignment in to batch_lock, we make it
impossible to clear STRIPE_BATCH_READY before batch_head is set.

Thanks Stephane for helping debug this tricky issue.

Reported-and-tested-by: Stephane Thiell <sthiell@...nford.edu>
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 drivers/md/raid5.c |   10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -829,6 +829,14 @@ static void stripe_add_to_batch_list(str
 			spin_unlock(&head->batch_head->batch_lock);
 			goto unlock_out;
 		}
+		/*
+		 * We must assign batch_head of this stripe within the
+		 * batch_lock, otherwise clear_batch_ready of batch head
+		 * stripe could clear BATCH_READY bit of this stripe and
+		 * this stripe->batch_head doesn't get assigned, which
+		 * could confuse clear_batch_ready for this stripe
+		 */
+		sh->batch_head = head->batch_head;
 
 		/*
 		 * at this point, head's BATCH_READY could be cleared, but we
@@ -836,8 +844,6 @@ static void stripe_add_to_batch_list(str
 		 */
 		list_add(&sh->batch_list, &head->batch_list);
 		spin_unlock(&head->batch_head->batch_lock);
-
-		sh->batch_head = head->batch_head;
 	} else {
 		head->batch_head = head;
 		sh->batch_head = head->batch_head;