linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.11 14/44] btrfs: fix race between extent freeing/allocation when using bitmaps

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]

Date:   Mon,  8 Mar 2021 13:34:52 +0100
From:   gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Subject: [PATCH 5.11 14/44] btrfs: fix race between extent freeing/allocation when using bitmaps

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>

commit 3c17916510428dbccdf657de050c34e208347089 upstream.

During allocation the allocator will try to allocate an extent using
cluster policy. Once the current cluster is exhausted it will remove the
entry under btrfs_free_cluster::lock and subsequently acquire
btrfs_free_space_ctl::tree_lock to dispose of the already-deleted entry
and adjust btrfs_free_space_ctl::total_bitmap. This poses a problem
because there exists a race condition between removing the entry under
one lock and doing the necessary accounting holding a different lock
since extent freeing only uses the 2nd lock. This can result in the
following situation:

T1:                                    T2:
btrfs_alloc_from_cluster               insert_into_bitmap <holds tree_lock>
 if (entry->bytes == 0)                   if (block_group && !list_empty(&block_group->cluster_list)) {
    rb_erase(entry)

 spin_unlock(&cluster->lock);
   (total_bitmaps is still 4)           spin_lock(&cluster->lock);
                                         <doesn't find entry in cluster->root>
 spin_lock(&ctl->tree_lock);             <goes to new_bitmap label, adds
<blocked since T2 holds tree_lock>       <a new entry and calls add_new_bitmap>
					    recalculate_thresholds  <crashes,
                                              due to total_bitmaps
					      becoming 5 and triggering
					      an ASSERT>

To fix this ensure that once depleted, the cluster entry is deleted when
both cluster lock and tree locks are held in the allocator (T1), this
ensures that even if there is a race with a concurrent
insert_into_bitmap call it will correctly find the entry in the cluster
and add the new space to it.

CC: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # 4.4+
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c |    6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/free-space-cache.c
@@ -3028,8 +3028,6 @@ u64 btrfs_alloc_from_cluster(struct btrf
 			entry->bytes -= bytes;
 		}
 
-		if (entry->bytes == 0)
-			rb_erase(&entry->offset_index, &cluster->root);
 		break;
 	}
 out:
@@ -3046,7 +3044,10 @@ out:
 	ctl->free_space -= bytes;
 	if (!entry->bitmap && !btrfs_free_space_trimmed(entry))
 		ctl->discardable_bytes[BTRFS_STAT_CURR] -= bytes;
+
+	spin_lock(&cluster->lock);
 	if (entry->bytes == 0) {
+		rb_erase(&entry->offset_index, &cluster->root);
 		ctl->free_extents--;
 		if (entry->bitmap) {
 			kmem_cache_free(btrfs_free_space_bitmap_cachep,
@@ -3059,6 +3060,7 @@ out:
 		kmem_cache_free(btrfs_free_space_cachep, entry);
 	}
 
+	spin_unlock(&cluster->lock);
 	spin_unlock(&ctl->tree_lock);
 
 	return ret;