| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:48:52 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: syzbot <syzbot+7f617d4a9369028b8a2c@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: general protection fault in io_poll_double_wake
On 8/15/20 11:16 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 8/15/20 10:00 AM, syzbot wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> syzbot found the following issue on:
>>
>> HEAD commit: 7fca4dee Merge tag 'powerpc-5.9-2' of git://git.kernel.org..
>> git tree: upstream
>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1264d116900000
>> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=21f0d1d2df6d5fc
>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=7f617d4a9369028b8a2c
>> compiler: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ c2443155a0fb245c8f17f2c1c72b6ea391e86e81)
>> syz repro: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=10f211d2900000
>> C reproducer: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=1721b0ce900000
>>
>> The issue was bisected to:
>>
>> commit 18bceab101adde8f38de76016bc77f3f25cf22f4
>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> Date: Fri May 15 17:56:54 2020 +0000
>>
>> io_uring: allow POLL_ADD with double poll_wait() users
>
> I can reproduce this, I'll fix it up. Thanks!
This should fix it:
>From 34fc8d0b76572c9fb184ab589d682dccfeb5c039 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 11:44:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] io_uring: sanitize double poll handling
There's a bit of confusion on the matching pairs of poll vs double poll,
depending on if the request is a pure poll (IORING_OP_POLL_ADD) or
poll driven retry.
Add io_poll_get_double() that returns the double poll waitqueue, if any,
and io_poll_get_single() that returns the original poll waitqueue. With
that, remove the argument to io_poll_remove_double().
Finally ensure that wait->private is cleared once the double poll handler
has run, so that remove knows it's already been seen.
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # v5.8
Reported-by: syzbot+7f617d4a9369028b8a2c@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: 18bceab101ad ("io_uring: allow POLL_ADD with double poll_wait() users")
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
---
fs/io_uring.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index 7dd6df15bc49..cb030912bf5e 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -4649,9 +4649,24 @@ static bool io_poll_rewait(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_poll_iocb *poll)
return false;
}
-static void io_poll_remove_double(struct io_kiocb *req, void *data)
+static struct io_poll_iocb *io_poll_get_double(struct io_kiocb *req)
{
- struct io_poll_iocb *poll = data;
+ /* pure poll stashes this in ->io, poll driven retry elsewhere */
+ if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_POLL_ADD)
+ return (struct io_poll_iocb *) req->io;
+ return req->apoll->double_poll;
+}
+
+static struct io_poll_iocb *io_poll_get_single(struct io_kiocb *req)
+{
+ if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_POLL_ADD)
+ return &req->poll;
+ return &req->apoll->poll;
+}
+
+static void io_poll_remove_double(struct io_kiocb *req)
+{
+ struct io_poll_iocb *poll = io_poll_get_double(req);
lockdep_assert_held(&req->ctx->completion_lock);
@@ -4671,7 +4686,7 @@ static void io_poll_complete(struct io_kiocb *req, __poll_t mask, int error)
{
struct io_ring_ctx *ctx = req->ctx;
- io_poll_remove_double(req, req->io);
+ io_poll_remove_double(req);
req->poll.done = true;
io_cqring_fill_event(req, error ? error : mangle_poll(mask));
io_commit_cqring(ctx);
@@ -4711,7 +4726,7 @@ static int io_poll_double_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode,
int sync, void *key)
{
struct io_kiocb *req = wait->private;
- struct io_poll_iocb *poll = req->apoll->double_poll;
+ struct io_poll_iocb *poll = io_poll_get_single(req);
__poll_t mask = key_to_poll(key);
/* for instances that support it check for an event match first: */
@@ -4725,6 +4740,8 @@ static int io_poll_double_wake(struct wait_queue_entry *wait, unsigned mode,
done = list_empty(&poll->wait.entry);
if (!done)
list_del_init(&poll->wait.entry);
+ /* make sure double remove sees this as being gone */
+ wait->private = NULL;
spin_unlock(&poll->head->lock);
if (!done)
__io_async_wake(req, poll, mask, io_poll_task_func);
@@ -4808,7 +4825,7 @@ static void io_async_task_func(struct callback_head *cb)
if (hash_hashed(&req->hash_node))
hash_del(&req->hash_node);
- io_poll_remove_double(req, apoll->double_poll);
+ io_poll_remove_double(req);
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
if (!READ_ONCE(apoll->poll.canceled))
@@ -4919,7 +4936,7 @@ static bool io_arm_poll_handler(struct io_kiocb *req)
ret = __io_arm_poll_handler(req, &apoll->poll, &ipt, mask,
io_async_wake);
if (ret || ipt.error) {
- io_poll_remove_double(req, apoll->double_poll);
+ io_poll_remove_double(req);
spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->completion_lock);
kfree(apoll->double_poll);
kfree(apoll);
@@ -4951,14 +4968,13 @@ static bool io_poll_remove_one(struct io_kiocb *req)
{
bool do_complete;
+ io_poll_remove_double(req);
+
if (req->opcode == IORING_OP_POLL_ADD) {
- io_poll_remove_double(req, req->io);
do_complete = __io_poll_remove_one(req, &req->poll);
} else {
struct async_poll *apoll = req->apoll;
- io_poll_remove_double(req, apoll->double_poll);
-
/* non-poll requests have submit ref still */
do_complete = __io_poll_remove_one(req, &apoll->poll);
if (do_complete) {
--
2.28.0
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists