linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-throttle: fix race between submitter and throttler thread

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 May 2021 20:00:51 +0300
From:   Dmitry Monakhov <dmtrmonakhov@...dex-team.ru>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-throttle: fix race between submitter and throttler thread



> Hello, Dmitry.
> 
> This generally looks good to me. A couple nits below.
> 
>> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
>> {
>> struct bio *parent = bio->bi_private;
>>
>> + BUG_ON(!bio_flagged(parent, BIO_CHAIN));
> 
> Let's do WARN_ON_ONCE().
If we hit this point when this mean that  ->bio_end_io  will be called for parent bio.
Which likely result in use-after-free for that bio and silent data corruption for bio's pages
So IMHO BUG_ON is more appropriate here. What do you think?
> 
>> @@ -2270,6 +2285,8 @@ bool blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
>>
>> td->nr_queued[rw]++;
>> throtl_add_bio_tg(bio, qn, tg);
> 
> Can you add some comment here explaining how now that the bio is added for
> throttling, there are two accessors of it and the bio must not be modified
> without holding the lock?
Sound reasonable, will be back with updated comments.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> --
> tejun