linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and

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:   Mon, 22 Apr 2019 10:38:32 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+10d25e23199614b7721f@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm

On 4/22/19 10:32 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 4/22/19 10:27 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> [ Crossed emails ]
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 9:23 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the below should fix this. Very early versions of io_uring didn't
>>> have this issue, since we did the percpu ref tryget for io_uring_register().
>>
>> Ok, so I like your patch better than mine, but note how syzbot
>> bisected this to the initial merge of the io_uring code.
> 
> Yes, I did think about that too...
> 
>> I agree that code shouldn't have had this particular issue, but it
>> looks like it does.
>>
>> Is there some way to race with io_ring_ctx_wait_and_kill(), which
>> _also_ does that ref_kill() thing? I'm not seeing how that could
>> happen, but maybe if the file ref counts get screwed up you have
>> ->release() called early..
> 
> I just tried on the current code and it triggers easily, but that's
> with that mutex patch in there. I agree it should not trigger before
> that, unless something is wonky. I'll try and play around with it a bit
> and see what is going on (or if I can trigger it at all with the mutex
> change reverted).

With the mutex change in, I can trigger it in a second or so. Just ran
the reproducer with that change reverted, and I'm not seeing any badness.
So I do wonder if the bisect results are accurate?

I think the dying check should cover it, and then marked with fixing
that mutex commit.

-- 
Jens Axboe