linux-kernel - [PATCH v5 06/14] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do

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: <20211220135951.4075801-7-chengzhihao1@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Dec 2021 21:59:43 +0800
From:   Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
To:     <richard@....at>, <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>, <vigneshr@...com>,
        <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>, <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 06/14] ubifs: Fix 'ui->dirty' race between do_tmpfile() and writeback work

'ui->dirty' is not protected by 'ui_mutex' in function do_tmpfile() which
may race with ubifs_write_inode[wb_workfn] to access/update 'ui->dirty',
finally dirty space is released twice.

	open(O_TMPFILE)                wb_workfn
do_tmpfile
  ubifs_budget_space(ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1})
  d_tmpfile // mark inode(tmpfile) dirty
  ubifs_jnl_update // without holding tmpfile's ui_mutex
    mark_inode_clean(ui)
      if (ui->dirty)
        ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui)  // release first time
                                   ubifs_write_inode
				     mutex_lock(&ui->ui_mutex)
                                     ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget(ui)
				     // release second time
				     mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex)
      ui->dirty = 0

Run generic/476 can reproduce following message easily
(See reproducer in [Link]):

  UBIFS error (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_assert_failed [ubifs]: UBIFS assert
  failed: c->bi.dd_growth >= 0, in fs/ubifs/budget.c:554
  UBIFS warning (ubi0:0 pid 2578): ubifs_ro_mode [ubifs]: switched to
  read-only mode, error -22
  Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-ubifs_0_0)
  Call Trace:
    ubifs_ro_mode+0x54/0x60 [ubifs]
    ubifs_assert_failed+0x4b/0x80 [ubifs]
    ubifs_release_budget+0x468/0x5a0 [ubifs]
    ubifs_release_dirty_inode_budget+0x53/0x80 [ubifs]
    ubifs_write_inode+0x121/0x1f0 [ubifs]
    ...
    wb_workfn+0x283/0x7b0

Fix it by holding tmpfile ubifs inode lock during ubifs_jnl_update().
Similar problem exists in whiteout renaming, but previous fix("ubifs:
Rename whiteout atomically") has solved the problem.

Fixes: 474b93704f32163 ("ubifs: Implement O_TMPFILE")
Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214765
Signed-off-by: Zhihao Cheng <chengzhihao1@...wei.com>
---
 fs/ubifs/dir.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ubifs/dir.c b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
index deaf2d5dba5b..ebdc9aa04cbb 100644
--- a/fs/ubifs/dir.c
+++ b/fs/ubifs/dir.c
@@ -397,6 +397,32 @@ static struct inode *create_whiteout(struct inode *dir, struct dentry *dentry)
 	return ERR_PTR(err);
 }
 
+/**
+ * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes.
+ * @inode1: first inode
+ * @inode2: second inode
+ *
+ * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because
+ * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple
+ * wrapper function.
+ */
+static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
+{
+	mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1);
+	mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2);
+}
+
+/**
+ * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes.
+ * @inode1: first inode
+ * @inode2: second inode
+ */
+static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
+{
+	mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex);
+}
+
 static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir,
 			 struct dentry *dentry, umode_t mode)
 {
@@ -404,7 +430,7 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir,
 	struct ubifs_info *c = dir->i_sb->s_fs_info;
 	struct ubifs_budget_req req = { .new_ino = 1, .new_dent = 1};
 	struct ubifs_budget_req ino_req = { .dirtied_ino = 1 };
-	struct ubifs_inode *ui, *dir_ui = ubifs_inode(dir);
+	struct ubifs_inode *ui;
 	int err, instantiated = 0;
 	struct fscrypt_name nm;
 
@@ -452,18 +478,18 @@ static int ubifs_tmpfile(struct user_namespace *mnt_userns, struct inode *dir,
 	instantiated = 1;
 	mutex_unlock(&ui->ui_mutex);
 
-	mutex_lock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex);
+	lock_2_inodes(dir, inode);
 	err = ubifs_jnl_update(c, dir, &nm, inode, 1, 0);
 	if (err)
 		goto out_cancel;
-	mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex);
+	unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode);
 
 	ubifs_release_budget(c, &req);
 
 	return 0;
 
 out_cancel:
-	mutex_unlock(&dir_ui->ui_mutex);
+	unlock_2_inodes(dir, inode);
 out_inode:
 	make_bad_inode(inode);
 	if (!instantiated)
@@ -690,32 +716,6 @@ static int ubifs_dir_release(struct inode *dir, struct file *file)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-/**
- * lock_2_inodes - a wrapper for locking two UBIFS inodes.
- * @inode1: first inode
- * @inode2: second inode
- *
- * We do not implement any tricks to guarantee strict lock ordering, because
- * VFS has already done it for us on the @i_mutex. So this is just a simple
- * wrapper function.
- */
-static void lock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
-{
-	mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_1);
-	mutex_lock_nested(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex, WB_MUTEX_2);
-}
-
-/**
- * unlock_2_inodes - a wrapper for unlocking two UBIFS inodes.
- * @inode1: first inode
- * @inode2: second inode
- */
-static void unlock_2_inodes(struct inode *inode1, struct inode *inode2)
-{
-	mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode2)->ui_mutex);
-	mutex_unlock(&ubifs_inode(inode1)->ui_mutex);
-}
-
 static int ubifs_link(struct dentry *old_dentry, struct inode *dir,
 		      struct dentry *dentry)
 {
-- 
2.31.1