linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: erofs: remember if kobject_init_and

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:   Tue, 15 Mar 2022 19:05:34 +0800
From:   Huang Jianan <jnhuang95@...il.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>, Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>,
        Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: erofs: remember if kobject_init_and_add was done

在 2022/3/15 18:55, Gao Xiang 写道:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 06:43:01PM +0800, Huang Jianan wrote:
>> 在 2022/3/15 15:51, Dongliang Mu 写道:
>>> From: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
>>>
>>> Syzkaller hit 'WARNING: kobject bug in erofs_unregister_sysfs'. This bug
>>> is triggered by injecting fault in kobject_init_and_add of
>>> erofs_unregister_sysfs.
>>>
>>> Fix this by remembering if kobject_init_and_add is successful.
>>>
>>> Note that I've tested the patch and the crash does not occur any more.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dongliang Mu <mudongliangabcd@...il.com>
>>> ---
>>>    fs/erofs/internal.h | 1 +
>>>    fs/erofs/sysfs.c    | 9 ++++++---
>>>    2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/internal.h b/fs/erofs/internal.h
>>> index 5aa2cf2c2f80..9e20665e3f68 100644
>>> --- a/fs/erofs/internal.h
>>> +++ b/fs/erofs/internal.h
>>> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ struct erofs_sb_info {
>>>    	u32 feature_incompat;
>>>    	/* sysfs support */
>>> +	bool s_sysfs_inited;
>> Hi Dongliang,
>>
>> How about using sbi->s_kobj.state_in_sysfs to avoid adding a extra member in
>> sbi ?
> Ok, I have no tendency of these (I'm fine with either ways).
> I've seen some usage like:
>
> static inline int device_is_registered(struct device *dev)
> {
>          return dev->kobj.state_in_sysfs;
> }
>
> But I'm still not sure if we need to rely on such internal
> interface.. More thoughts?

Yeah... It seems that it is better to use some of the interfaces 
provided by kobject,
otherwise we should still maintain this state in sbi.

Thanks,
Jianan

> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>> Thanks,
>> Jianan
>>
>>>    	struct kobject s_kobj;		/* /sys/fs/erofs/<devname> */
>>>    	struct completion s_kobj_unregister;
>>>    };
>>> diff --git a/fs/erofs/sysfs.c b/fs/erofs/sysfs.c
>>> index dac252bc9228..2b48a4df19b4 100644
>>> --- a/fs/erofs/sysfs.c
>>> +++ b/fs/erofs/sysfs.c
>>> @@ -209,6 +209,7 @@ int erofs_register_sysfs(struct super_block *sb)
>>>    				   "%s", sb->s_id);
>>>    	if (err)
>>>    		goto put_sb_kobj;
>>> +	sbi->s_sysfs_inited = true;
>>>    	return 0;
>>>    put_sb_kobj:
>>> @@ -221,9 +222,11 @@ void erofs_unregister_sysfs(struct super_block *sb)
>>>    {
>>>    	struct erofs_sb_info *sbi = EROFS_SB(sb);
>>> -	kobject_del(&sbi->s_kobj);
>>> -	kobject_put(&sbi->s_kobj);
>>> -	wait_for_completion(&sbi->s_kobj_unregister);
>>> +	if (sbi->s_sysfs_inited) {
>>> +		kobject_del(&sbi->s_kobj);
>>> +		kobject_put(&sbi->s_kobj);
>>> +		wait_for_completion(&sbi->s_kobj_unregister);
>>> +	}
>>>    }
>>>    int __init erofs_init_sysfs(void)