linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: fix a crash in do_task

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:   Sun, 30 Jun 2019 16:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hch@....de, gkohli@...eaurora.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix a crash in do_task_dead()

On Wed, 5 Jun 2019, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 
> How about the following plan - if folks are happy with this sched patch,
> we can queue it up for 5.3. Once that is in, I'll kill the block change
> that special cases the polled task wakeup. For 5.2, we go with Oleg's
> patch for the swap case.

I just hit the do_task_dead() kernel BUG at kernel/sched/core.c:3463!
while heavy swapping on 5.2-rc7: it looks like Oleg's patch intended
for 5.2 was not signed off, and got forgotten.

I did hit the do_task_dead() BUG (but not at all easily) on early -rcs
before seeing Oleg's patch, then folded it in and and didn't hit the BUG
again; then just tried again without it, and luckily hit in a few hours.

So I can give it an enthusiastic
Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
because it makes good sense to avoid the get/blk_wake/put overhead on
the asynch path anyway, even if it didn't work around a bug; but only
Half-Tested-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
since I have not been exercising the synchronous path at all.

Hugh, requoting Oleg:

> 
> I don't understand this code at all but I am just curious, can we do
> something like incomplete patch below ?
> 
> Oleg.
> 
> --- x/mm/page_io.c
> +++ x/mm/page_io.c
> @@ -140,8 +140,10 @@ int swap_readpage(struct page *page, bool synchronous)
>  	unlock_page(page);
>  	WRITE_ONCE(bio->bi_private, NULL);
>  	bio_put(bio);
> -	blk_wake_io_task(waiter);
> -	put_task_struct(waiter);
> +	if (waiter) {
> +		blk_wake_io_task(waiter);
> +		put_task_struct(waiter);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  int generic_swapfile_activate(struct swap_info_struct *sis,
> @@ -398,11 +400,12 @@ int swap_readpage(struct page *page, boo
>  	 * Keep this task valid during swap readpage because the oom killer may
>  	 * attempt to access it in the page fault retry time check.
>  	 */
> -	get_task_struct(current);
> -	bio->bi_private = current;
>  	bio_set_op_attrs(bio, REQ_OP_READ, 0);
> -	if (synchronous)
> +	if (synchronous) {
>  		bio->bi_opf |= REQ_HIPRI;
> +		get_task_struct(current);
> +		bio->bi_private = current;
> +	}
>  	count_vm_event(PSWPIN);
>  	bio_get(bio);
>  	qc = submit_bio(bio);