linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 161/205] fuse: fix possibly missed wake-up after abort

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: <20181119162639.608639347@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 19 Nov 2018 17:27:48 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 161/205] fuse: fix possibly missed wake-up after abort

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

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

From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>

commit 2d84a2d19b6150c6dbac1e6ebad9c82e4c123772 upstream.

In current fuse_drop_waiting() implementation it's possible that
fuse_wait_aborted() will not be woken up in the unlikely case that
fuse_abort_conn() + fuse_wait_aborted() runs in between checking
fc->connected and calling atomic_dec(&fc->num_waiting).

Do the atomic_dec_and_test() unconditionally, which also provides the
necessary barrier against reordering with the fc->connected check.

The explicit smp_mb() in fuse_wait_aborted() is not actually needed, since
the spin_unlock() in fuse_abort_conn() provides the necessary RELEASE
barrier after resetting fc->connected.  However, this is not a performance
sensitive path, and adding the explicit barrier makes it easier to
document.

Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...hat.com>
Fixes: b8f95e5d13f5 ("fuse: umount should wait for all requests")
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> #v4.19
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 fs/fuse/dev.c |   12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
@@ -129,9 +129,13 @@ static bool fuse_block_alloc(struct fuse

 static void fuse_drop_waiting(struct fuse_conn *fc)
 {
-	if (fc->connected) {
-		atomic_dec(&fc->num_waiting);
-	} else if (atomic_dec_and_test(&fc->num_waiting)) {
+	/*
+	 * lockess check of fc->connected is okay, because atomic_dec_and_test()
+	 * provides a memory barrier mached with the one in fuse_wait_aborted()
+	 * to ensure no wake-up is missed.
+	 */
+	if (atomic_dec_and_test(&fc->num_waiting) &&
+	    !READ_ONCE(fc->connected)) {
 		/* wake up aborters */
 		wake_up_all(&fc->blocked_waitq);
 	}
@@ -2167,6 +2171,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(fuse_abort_conn);

 void fuse_wait_aborted(struct fuse_conn *fc)
 {
+	/* matches implicit memory barrier in fuse_drop_waiting() */
+	smp_mb();
 	wait_event(fc->blocked_waitq, atomic_read(&fc->num_waiting) == 0);
 }