[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200424234741.GE11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 23:47:41 +0000
From: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, bvanassche@....org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...hat.com, jack@...e.cz, nstange@...e.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...e.com, yukuai3@...wei.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@...com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
syzbot+603294af2d01acfdd6da@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] blktrace: fix debugfs use after free
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 05:43:20PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 07:28:59AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > At this point in time patch-wise we still haven't reverted back to
> > synchronous request_queue removal. Considering this, a race with the
> > parent disappearing can happen because the request_queue removal is
> > deferred, that is, the request_queue's kobject's release() call used
> > schedule_work() to finish off its removal. We expect the last
> > blk_put_queue() to be called at the end of blk_cleanup_queue(). Since
>
> Actually no, we expect that request queue is released after disk is
> released. Don't forget that gendisk does hold one extra refcount of
> request queue.
Then by all means using blk_put_queue() from everywhere should be safe
in atomic context, as we have control over that blk_put_queue() on the
block layer.
(Modulo, we accept the races possible today on blk_get_queue(), which
I'll try to address).
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists