| 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: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 19:17:20 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
To: yebin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] PM: hibernate: Get block device exclusively when do swsusp_check
On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 4:38 PM yebin <yebin10@...wei.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/10/21 21:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 1:38 PM yebin <yebin10@...wei.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021/10/21 19:00, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:06 PM Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com> wrote:
> >>>> We got follow issue:
> >>>> [ 89.266592] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >>>> [ 89.267427] kernel BUG at fs/buffer.c:3020!
> >>>> [ 89.268264] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
> >>>> [ 89.269116] CPU: 7 PID: 1750 Comm: kmmpd-loop0 Not tainted 5.10.0-862.14.0.6.x86_64-08610-gc932cda3cef4-dirty #20
> >>>> [ 89.273169] RIP: 0010:submit_bh_wbc.isra.0+0x538/0x6d0
> >>>> [ 89.277157] RSP: 0018:ffff888105ddfd08 EFLAGS: 00010246
> >>>> [ 89.278093] RAX: 0000000000000005 RBX: ffff888124231498 RCX: ffffffffb2772612
> >>>> [ 89.279332] RDX: 1ffff11024846293 RSI: 0000000000000008 RDI: ffff888124231498
> >>>> [ 89.280591] RBP: ffff8881248cc000 R08: 0000000000000001 R09: ffffed1024846294
> >>>> [ 89.281851] R10: ffff88812423149f R11: ffffed1024846293 R12: 0000000000003800
> >>>> [ 89.283095] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff8881161f7000
> >>>> [ 89.284342] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88839b5c0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> >>>> [ 89.285711] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> >>>> [ 89.286701] CR2: 00007f166ebc01a0 CR3: 0000000435c0e000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> >>>> [ 89.287919] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> >>>> [ 89.289138] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> >>>> [ 89.290368] Call Trace:
> >>>> [ 89.290842] write_mmp_block+0x2ca/0x510
> >>>> [ 89.292218] kmmpd+0x433/0x9a0
> >>>> [ 89.294902] kthread+0x2dd/0x3e0
> >>>> [ 89.296268] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
> >>>> [ 89.296906] Modules linked in:
> >>>>
> >>>> We can reproduce this issue as follow:
> >>>> 1. mkfs.ext4 -O mmp /dev/sda -b 1024
> >>>> 2. mount /dev/sda /home/test
> >>>> 3. echo "/dev/sda" > /sys/power/resume
> >>>> 4. wait a moment we will get exception
> >>>>
> >>>> The sequence of issue is as follows:
> >>>> Thread1 Thread2
> >>>> mount /dev/sda /home/test
> >>>> get s_mmp_bh --> has mapped flag
> >>>> start kmmpd thread
> >>>> echo "/dev/sda" > /sys/power/resume
> >>>> resume_store
> >>>> software_resume
> >>>> swsusp_check
> >>>> set_blocksize
> >>>> truncate_inode_pages_range
> >>>> truncate_cleanup_page
> >>>> block_invalidatepage
> >>>> discard_buffer --> clean mapped flag
> >>>> write_mmp_block
> >>>> submit_bh
> >>>> submit_bh_wbc
> >>>> BUG_ON(!buffer_mapped(bh)) --> trigger bug_on
> >>>>
> >>>> To solve this issue, get block device exclusively when do swsusp_check.
> >>> And why exactly is this going to help?
> >> If a block device is already mounted, then do resume, it will discard
> >> buffer
> >> which file system being used. That can cause the file system to crash and
> >> may even cause the system to reset abnormally.
> > I see.
> >
> > Is there a way to indicate in swsusp_check() that the access will be
> > read-only and so it doesn't care whether or not the block device is in
> > use by someone else?
> The root reason is that call 'set_blocksize' in 'swsusp_check' which
> maybe invalidate
> block device's page.
I see.
> Moreover, the file system and swap partition share storage space, which
> will lead to
> data confusion.
> >> If the "/sys/power/resume" sysfs interface is unrestricted, it will provide
> >> criminals with a way to attack the system.
> >>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> kernel/power/swap.c | 5 +++--
> >>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/kernel/power/swap.c b/kernel/power/swap.c
> >>>> index 9ec418955556..26c0bd2a50da 100644
> >>>> --- a/kernel/power/swap.c
> >>>> +++ b/kernel/power/swap.c
> >>>> @@ -1521,9 +1521,10 @@ int swsusp_read(unsigned int *flags_p)
> >>>> int swsusp_check(void)
> >>>> {
> >>>> int error;
> >>>> + void *holder;
> >>>>
> >>>> hib_resume_bdev = blkdev_get_by_dev(swsusp_resume_device,
> >>>> - FMODE_READ, NULL);
> >>>> + FMODE_READ | FMODE_EXCL, &holder);
> >>> So you need to explain to me how this works.
> >> As we call 'blkdev_get_by_path' in 'mount_bdev' pass mode includes
> >> FMODE_EXCL.
> >> So if 'swsusp_check' try to get block device with mode includes
> >> FMODE_EXCL will failed.
> >>
> >> I think if a block device is used as a swap partition, it cannot be
> >> mounted at the
> >> same time. Conversely, if a block device is already mounted, it cannot
> >> be used as
> >> a swap partition.
> > Well, what if a hibernation image is located in a swap file? This is
> > one of the cases that need to be supported.
> I don't know much about this, but I think the process can call
> swsusp_check, the
> hibernation image must be loaded into the block device.
Yes, it is invalid to call swsusp_check() without a hibernation image
in the target swap partition or swap file if that's what you mean.
However, in the case of a swap file, the image may be there in theory
even if the filesystem holding the swap file is mounted.
> I refer to the process of swapon. If the swap partition is a block
> device, it is also
> opened exclusively.
>
> swapon
> claim_swapfile
There are two cases, though, the S_ISBLK() one and the S_ISREG() one,
and the latter is the swap file case I believe.
> static int claim_swapfile(struct swap_info_struct *p, struct inode *inode)
> {
> int error;
>
> if (S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) { -->If a block device is
> specified, it is also opened exclusively here.
> p->bdev = blkdev_get_by_dev(inode->i_rdev,
> FMODE_READ | FMODE_WRITE |
> FMODE_EXCL, p);
> if (IS_ERR(p->bdev)) {
> error = PTR_ERR(p->bdev);
> p->bdev = NULL;
> return error;
> }
> p->old_block_size = block_size(p->bdev);
> error = set_blocksize(p->bdev, PAGE_SIZE);
> if (error < 0)
> return error;
> /*
> * Zoned block devices contain zones that have a sequential
> * write only restriction. Hence zoned block devices
> are not
> * suitable for swapping. Disallow them here.
> */
> if (blk_queue_is_zoned(p->bdev->bd_disk->queue))
> return -EINVAL;
> p->flags |= SWP_BLKDEV;
> } else if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> p->bdev = inode->i_sb->s_bdev;
Here, it is not exclusive.
Anyway, I think that the change made by the patch should be fine,
because it mostly affects restore and I'm not expecting anyone to
restore the system from an image in a swap file while the filesystem
holding it is mounted.
So I'm going to apply it with some changelog edits.
Thanks!
> }
>
> return 0;
> }
> >>>> if (!IS_ERR(hib_resume_bdev)) {
> >>>> set_blocksize(hib_resume_bdev, PAGE_SIZE);
> >>>> clear_page(swsusp_header);
> >>>> @@ -1545,7 +1546,7 @@ int swsusp_check(void)
> >>>>
> >>>> put:
> >>>> if (error)
> >>>> - blkdev_put(hib_resume_bdev, FMODE_READ);
> >>>> + blkdev_put(hib_resume_bdev, FMODE_READ | FMODE_EXCL);
> >>>> else
> >>>> pr_debug("Image signature found, resuming\n");
> >>>> } else {
> >>>> --
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists