[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27081.1575551190@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2019 13:06:30 +0000
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, amit@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
syzbot <syzbot+d37abaade33a934f16f2@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jannh@...gle.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
miklos@...redi.hu, rostedt@...dmis.org,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, willy@...radead.org
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/pipe.c:LINE!
Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
> static __poll_t
> pipe_poll(struct file *filp, poll_table *wait)
> {
> __poll_t mask;
> struct pipe_inode_info *pipe = filp->private_data;
> unsigned int head = READ_ONCE(pipe->head);
> unsigned int tail = READ_ONCE(pipe->tail);
>
> poll_wait(filp, &pipe->wait, wait);
>
> BUG_ON(pipe_occupancy(head, tail) > pipe->ring_size);
>
> It's not holding the pipe mutex, right? So 'head', 'tail' and 'ring_size' can
> all be changed concurrently, and they aren't read atomically with respect to
> each other.
>
> How do you propose to implement poll() correctly with the new head + tail
> approach? Just take the mutex?
Firstly, the BUG_ON() check probably isn't necessary here - the same issue
with occupancy being seen to be greater than the queue depth existed
previously (there was no locking around the read of pipe->nrbufs and
pipe->buffers). I added a sanity check.
Secondly, it should be possible to make it such that just the spinlock
suffices. The following few patches make the main pipe read/write routines
use the spinlock so as not to be interfered with by notification insertion.
I didn't roll the spinlock out to splice and suchlike since I prohibit
splicing to a notifications pipe because of the iov_iter_revert() fun.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists