linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix btrfs_block

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]

Message-ID: <CAL3q7H4wE48Uqu6xLA-FYGy9qxov+26wnpXsjG=Ragi1UJx21Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Apr 2020 18:31:11 +0100
From:   Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...il.com>
To:     Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@...an.edu.cn>
Cc:     Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yuanxzhang@...an.edu.cn,
        kjlu@....edu, Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Fix btrfs_block_group refcnt leak

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 6:48 AM Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@...an.edu.cn> wrote:
>
> btrfs_remove_block_group() invokes btrfs_lookup_block_group(), which
> returns a local reference of the blcok group that contains the given
> bytenr to "block_group" with increased refcount.
>
> When btrfs_remove_block_group() returns, "block_group" becomes invalid,
> so the refcount should be decreased to keep refcount balanced.
>
> The reference counting issue happens in several exception handling paths
> of btrfs_remove_block_group(). When those error scenarios occur such as
> btrfs_alloc_path() returns NULL, the function forgets to decrease its
> refcnt increased by btrfs_lookup_block_group() and will cause a refcnt
> leak.
>
> Fix this issue by jumping to "out_put_group" label and calling
> btrfs_put_block_group() when those error scenarios occur.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xiyu Yang <xiyuyang19@...an.edu.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Xin Tan <tanxin.ctf@...il.com>

Seems correct to me.
I would change the subject to something more clear like: "btrfs: fix
block group leak after failure to remove it"

One more suggestion below.

> ---
>  fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 13 ++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> index 404e050ce8ee..d9f432bd3329 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> @@ -916,7 +916,7 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>         path = btrfs_alloc_path();
>         if (!path) {
>                 ret = -ENOMEM;
> -               goto out;
> +               goto out_put_group;
>         }
>
>         /*
> @@ -954,7 +954,7 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>                 ret = btrfs_orphan_add(trans, BTRFS_I(inode));
>                 if (ret) {
>                         btrfs_add_delayed_iput(inode);
> -                       goto out;
> +                       goto out_put_group;
>                 }
>                 clear_nlink(inode);
>                 /* One for the block groups ref */
> @@ -977,13 +977,13 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>
>         ret = btrfs_search_slot(trans, tree_root, &key, path, -1, 1);
>         if (ret < 0)
> -               goto out;
> +               goto out_put_group;
>         if (ret > 0)
>                 btrfs_release_path(path);
>         if (ret == 0) {
>                 ret = btrfs_del_item(trans, tree_root, path);
>                 if (ret)
> -                       goto out;
> +                       goto out_put_group;
>                 btrfs_release_path(path);
>         }
>
> @@ -1102,7 +1102,7 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>
>         ret = remove_block_group_free_space(trans, block_group);
>         if (ret)
> -               goto out;
> +               goto out_put_group;
>
>         btrfs_put_block_group(block_group);
>         btrfs_put_block_group(block_group);
> @@ -1132,6 +1132,9 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>                 btrfs_delayed_refs_rsv_release(fs_info, 1);
>         btrfs_free_path(path);
>         return ret;
> +out_put_group:
> +       btrfs_put_block_group(block_group);
> +       goto out;

Instead of this double goto, which tends to be error prone and harder to follow,
I suggest placing a call to btrfs_put_block_group() right after the
'out' label, with a comment
above it saying something like "once for the lookup reference" and
removing one of the btrfs_put_block_group()
calls right after calling remove_block_group_free_space(), and leaving
a comment above the other one saying "once for the block groups
rbtree".

Thanks.

>  }
>
>  struct btrfs_trans_handle *btrfs_start_trans_remove_block_group(
> --
> 2.7.4
>


-- 
Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”