linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.4 181/388] btrfs: do not init a reloc root if we arent relocating

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: <20200929110019.241640212@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:58:32 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 5.4 181/388] btrfs: do not init a reloc root if we arent relocating

From: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>

[ Upstream commit 2abc726ab4b83db774e315c660ab8da21477092f ]

We previously were checking if the root had a dead root before accessing
root->reloc_root in order to avoid a use-after-free type bug.  However
this scenario happens after we've unset the reloc control, so we would
have been saved if we'd simply checked for fs_info->reloc_control.  At
this point during relocation we no longer need to be creating new reloc
roots, so simply move this check above the reloc_root checks to avoid
any future races and confusion.

Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 fs/btrfs/relocation.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
index af3605a0bf2e0..1313506a7ecb5 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/relocation.c
@@ -1468,6 +1468,10 @@ int btrfs_init_reloc_root(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 	int clear_rsv = 0;
 	int ret;
 
+	if (!rc || !rc->create_reloc_tree ||
+	    root->root_key.objectid == BTRFS_TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID)
+		return 0;
+
 	/*
 	 * The subvolume has reloc tree but the swap is finished, no need to
 	 * create/update the dead reloc tree
@@ -1481,10 +1485,6 @@ int btrfs_init_reloc_root(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 		return 0;
 	}
 
-	if (!rc || !rc->create_reloc_tree ||
-	    root->root_key.objectid == BTRFS_TREE_RELOC_OBJECTID)
-		return 0;
-
 	if (!trans->reloc_reserved) {
 		rsv = trans->block_rsv;
 		trans->block_rsv = rc->block_rsv;
@@ -2336,6 +2336,18 @@ static noinline_for_stack int merge_reloc_root(struct reloc_control *rc,
 			trans = NULL;
 			goto out;
 		}
+
+		/*
+		 * At this point we no longer have a reloc_control, so we can't
+		 * depend on btrfs_init_reloc_root to update our last_trans.
+		 *
+		 * But that's ok, we started the trans handle on our
+		 * corresponding fs_root, which means it's been added to the
+		 * dirty list.  At commit time we'll still call
+		 * btrfs_update_reloc_root() and update our root item
+		 * appropriately.
+		 */
+		reloc_root->last_trans = trans->transid;
 		trans->block_rsv = rc->block_rsv;
 
 		replaced = 0;
-- 
2.25.1