linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] cachefiles: Fix assertion "6 == 5 is false" at fs/fscache/operation.c:494

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87601tz1oz.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
Date:   Fri, 06 Jul 2018 09:45:48 +1000
From:   NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-cachefs@...hat.com
Cc:     kiran.modukuri@...il.com, carmark.dlut@...il.com,
        vegard.nossum@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        aderobertis@...rics.net, dhowells@...hat.com, dja@...ens.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] cachefiles: Fix assertion "6 == 5 is false" at fs/fscache/operation.c:494

On Thu, Jul 05 2018, David Howells wrote:

> From: kiran modukuri <kiran.modukuri@...il.com>
>
> There is a potential race in fscache operation enqueuing for reading and
> copying multiple pages from cachefiles to netfs.
> Under some heavy load system, it will happen very often.
>
> If this race occurs, an oops similar to the following is seen:
>
>  kernel BUG at fs/fscache/operation.c:69!
>  invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
>  ...
>  #0 [ffff883fff0838d8] machine_kexec at ffffffff81051beb
>  #1 [ffff883fff083938] crash_kexec at ffffffff810f2542
>  #2 [ffff883fff083a08] oops_end at ffffffff8163e1a8
>  #3 [ffff883fff083a30] die at ffffffff8101859b
>  #4 [ffff883fff083a60] do_trap at ffffffff8163d860
>  #5 [ffff883fff083ab0] do_invalid_op at ffffffff81015204
>  #6 [ffff883fff083b60] invalid_op at ffffffff8164701e
>     [exception RIP: fscache_enqueue_operation+246]
>     RIP: ffffffffa0b793c6  RSP: ffff883fff083c18  RFLAGS: 00010046
>     RAX: 0000000000000019  RBX: ffff8832ed1a9ec0  RCX: 0000000000000006
>     RDX: 0000000000000000  RSI: 0000000000000046  RDI: 0000000000000046
>     RBP: ffff883fff083c20   R8: 0000000000000086   R9: 000000000000178f
>     R10: ffffffff816aeb00  R11: ffff883fff08392e  R12: ffff8802f0525620
>     R13: ffff88407ffc01d8  R14: 0000000000000000  R15: 0000000000000003
>     ORIG_RAX: ffffffffffffffff  CS: 0010  SS: 0000
>  #7 [ffff883fff083c10] fscache_enqueue_operation at ffffffffa0b793c6
>  #8 [ffff883fff083c28] cachefiles_read_waiter at ffffffffa0b15a48
>  #9 [ffff883fff083c48] __wake_up_common at ffffffff810af028
>
> Reported-by: Lei Xue <carmark.dlut@...il.com>
> Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
> Reported-by: Anthony DeRobertis <aderobertis@...rics.net>
> Reported-by: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>
> Reported-by: Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>
> Reported-by: KiranKumar Modukuri <kiran.modukuri@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> ---
>
>  fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c   |   17 ++++++++++++-----
>  fs/fscache/operation.c |    6 ++++--
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> index 5082c8a49686..40f7595aad10 100644
> --- a/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> +++ b/fs/cachefiles/rdwr.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ static int cachefiles_read_waiter(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
>  	struct cachefiles_one_read *monitor =
>  		container_of(wait, struct cachefiles_one_read, monitor);
>  	struct cachefiles_object *object;
> +	struct fscache_retrieval *op = monitor->op;
>  	struct wait_bit_key *key = _key;
>  	struct page *page = wait->private;
>  
> @@ -51,16 +52,22 @@ static int cachefiles_read_waiter(wait_queue_entry_t *wait, unsigned mode,
>  	list_del(&wait->entry);
>  
>  	/* move onto the action list and queue for FS-Cache thread pool */
> -	ASSERT(monitor->op);
> +	ASSERT(op);
>  
> -	object = container_of(monitor->op->op.object,
> -			      struct cachefiles_object, fscache);
> +	/* We need to temporarily bump the usage count as we don't own a ref
> +	 * here otherwise cachefiles_read_copier() may free the op between the
> +	 * monitor being enqueued on the op->to_do list and the op getting
> +	 * enqueued on the work queue.
> +	 */
> +	fscache_get_retrieval(op);
>  
> +	object = container_of(op->op.object, struct cachefiles_object, fscache);
>  	spin_lock(&object->work_lock);
> -	list_add_tail(&monitor->op_link, &monitor->op->to_do);
> +	list_add_tail(&monitor->op_link, &op->to_do);
>  	spin_unlock(&object->work_lock);
>  
> -	fscache_enqueue_retrieval(monitor->op);
> +	fscache_enqueue_retrieval(op);
> +	fscache_put_retrieval(op);
>  	return 0;
>  }

Thanks - I like this approach.  Taking the extra reference makes it a
lot more clear what is happening and why.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>  
> diff --git a/fs/fscache/operation.c b/fs/fscache/operation.c
> index e30c5975ea58..8d265790374c 100644
> --- a/fs/fscache/operation.c
> +++ b/fs/fscache/operation.c
> @@ -70,7 +70,8 @@ void fscache_enqueue_operation(struct fscache_operation *op)
>  	ASSERT(op->processor != NULL);
>  	ASSERT(fscache_object_is_available(op->object));
>  	ASSERTCMP(atomic_read(&op->usage), >, 0);
> -	ASSERTCMP(op->state, ==, FSCACHE_OP_ST_IN_PROGRESS);
> +	ASSERTIFCMP(op->state != FSCACHE_OP_ST_IN_PROGRESS,
> +		    op->state, ==,  FSCACHE_OP_ST_CANCELLED);
>  
>  	fscache_stat(&fscache_n_op_enqueue);
>  	switch (op->flags & FSCACHE_OP_TYPE) {
> @@ -499,7 +500,8 @@ void fscache_put_operation(struct fscache_operation *op)
>  	struct fscache_cache *cache;
>  
>  	_enter("{OBJ%x OP%x,%d}",
> -	       op->object->debug_id, op->debug_id, atomic_read(&op->usage));
> +	       op->object ? op->object->debug_id : 0,
> +	       op->debug_id, atomic_read(&op->usage));
>  
>  	ASSERTCMP(atomic_read(&op->usage), >, 0);
>  

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (833 bytes)