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  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:   Thu, 16 May 2019 13:48:17 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        syzbot <syzbot+10007d66ca02b08f0e60@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        dvyukov@...gle.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: task hung in __get_super

On Wed 15-05-19 15:07:30, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 15-05-19 20:32:27, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2019/05/15 19:21, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > The question is how to fix this problem. The simplest fix I can see is that
> > > we'd just refuse to do LOOP_SET_FD if someone has the block device
> > > exclusively open as there are high chances such user will be unpleasantly
> > > surprised by the device changing under him. OTOH this has some potential
> > > for userspace visible regressions. But I guess it's worth a try. Something
> > > like attached patch?
> > 
> > (1) If I understand correctly, FMODE_EXCL is set at blkdev_open() only if
> > O_EXCL is specified.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > How can we detect if O_EXCL was not used, for the reproducer (
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=ReproC&x=135385a8a00000 ) is not
> > using O_EXCL ?
> 
> mount_bdev() is using O_EXCL and that's what matters.
> 
> > (2) There seems to be no serialization. What guarantees that mount_bdev()
> >     does not start due to preempted after the check added by this patch?
> 
> That's a good question. lo_ctl_mutex actually synchronizes most of this
> (taken in both loop_set_fd() and lo_open()) but you're right that there's
> still a small race window where loop_set_fd() need not see bdev->bd_holders
> elevated while blkdev_get() will succeed. So I need to think a bit more
> about proper synchronization of this.

OK, so non-racy fix was a bit more involved and I've ended up just
upgrading the file reference to an exclusive one in loop_set_fd() instead
of trying to hand-craft some locking solution. The result is attached and
it passes blktests.

Let syzbot also test it:

#syz test: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git v5.1

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

View attachment "0001-loop-Don-t-change-loop-device-under-exclusive-opener.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2346 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists