linux-kernel - Re: block: be more careful about status in __bio_chain

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]

Date:   Fri, 22 Feb 2019 21:02:06 -0500
From:   John Dorminy <jdorminy@...hat.com>
To:     Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
        Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block: be more careful about status in __bio_chain_endio

I am perhaps not understanding the intricacies here, or not seeing a
barrier protecting it, so forgive me if I'm off base. I think reading
parent->bi_status here is unsafe.
Consider the following sequence of events on two threads.

Thread 0                                 Thread 1
In __bio_chain_endio:                    In __bio_chain_endio:
[A] Child 0 reads parent->bi_status,
    no error.
                                         Child bio 1 reads parent, no error seen
                                         It sets parent->bi_status to an error
                                         It calls bio_put.
Child bio 0 calls bio_put
[end __bio_chain_endio]                  [end __bio_chain_endio]
                                         In bio_chain_endio(), bio_endio(parent)
                                         is called, calling bio_remaining_done()
                                         which decrements __bi_remaining to 1
                                         and returns false, so no further endio
                                         stuff is done.
In bio_chain_endio(), bio_endio(parent)
is called, calling bio_remaining_done(),
decrementing parent->__bi_remaining to
 0, and continuing to finish parent.
Either for block tracing or for parent's
bi_end_io(), this thread tries to read
parent->bi_status again.

The compiler or the CPU may cache the read from [A], and since there
are no intervening barriers, parent->bi_status is still believed on
thread 0 to be success. Thus the bio may still be falsely believed to
have completed successfully, even though child 1 set an error in it.

Am I missing a subtlety here?