linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] block: revert pushing the final release of request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1f2fb027-1d62-2a52-9956-7847fa1baf96@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Feb 2020 18:26:24 +0800
From:   "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC:     <axboe@...nel.dk>, <chaitanya.kulkarni@....com>,
        <damien.lemoal@....com>, <bvanassche@....org>,
        <dhowells@...hat.com>, <asml.silence@...il.com>,
        <ajay.joshi@....com>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>,
        <zhangxiaoxu5@...wei.com>, <luoshijie1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: revert pushing the final release of request_queue
 to a workqueue.

On 2020/2/7 17:30, Ming Lei wrote:

> I guess your test case is more complicated than the above CVE, which
> should be triggered in single queue case.

No, the test case is from Syzkaller, you can get it from [1]
> Looks this approach isn't correct:
> 
> 1) there are other sleepers in __blk_release_queue(), such blk-mq sysfs
> kobject_put(), or cancel_delayed_work_sync(), ...
> 
commit dc9edc44de6c pushing the final release of request_queue to a
workqueue because sleepers are not allowed. However, since since
commit db6d99523560, sleeper is ok because blk_exit_rl() is removed
form blkg_free().

> 2) wrt. loop, the request queue's release handler may not be called yet
> after loop_remove() returns, so this patch may not avoid the issue in
> your step 3 in which blk_mq_debugfs_register fails when adding new loop
> device. So release not by wq just reduces the chance, instead of fixing
> it completely.
> 
The reason of the problem is because the final release of request_queue
may be called after loop_remove() returns.
And I think it will be fixed if we revert commit db6d99523560.

Thanks
Yu Kuai
> 
> 
> .
>