linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] blk-mq: Freeze and quiesce all queues for tagset in elevator

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: <85fd2c95-2258-9b51-02f8-01895c06f814@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:19:38 +0000
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC:     "hare@...e.de" <hare@...e.de>, "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "pragalla@...eaurora.org" <pragalla@...eaurora.org>,
        "kashyap.desai@...adcom.com" <kashyap.desai@...adcom.com>,
        yuyufen <yuyufen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/3] blk-mq: Freeze and quiesce all queues for
 tagset in elevator_exit()

On 16/03/2021 19:59, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/16/21 10:43 AM, John Garry wrote:
>> On 16/03/2021 17:00, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> I agree that Jens asked at the end of 2018 not to touch the fast path
>>> to fix this use-after-free (maybe that request has been repeated more
>>> recently). If Jens or anyone else feels strongly about not clearing
>>> hctx->tags->rqs[rq->tag] from the fast path then I will make that change.

Hi Bart,

>> Is that possible for this same approach? I need to check the code more..
> If the fast path should not be modified, I'm considering to borrow patch
> 1/3 from your patch series

Fine

> and to add an rcu_barrier() between the code
> that clears the request pointers and that frees the scheduler requests.
> 
>> And don't we still have the problem that some iter callbacks may
>> sleep/block, which is not allowed in an RCU read-side critical section?
> Thanks for having brought this up. Since none of the functions that
> iterate over requests should be called from the hot path of a block
> driver, I think that we can use srcu_read_(un|)lock() inside bt_iter()
> and bt_tags_iter() instead of rcu_read_(un|)lock().

OK, but TBH, I am not so familiar with srcu - where you going to try this?

Thanks,
John