linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.19 196/338] Revert "Revert "block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges""

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: <20220414110844.475505816@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 15:11:39 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Holger Hoffstätte 
        <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 4.19 196/338] Revert "Revert "block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges""

From: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>

[ Upstream commit 15729ff8143f8135b03988a100a19e66d7cb7ecd ]

A crash [1] happened to be triggered in conjunction with commit
2d52c58b9c9b ("block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges"). The
latter was then reverted by commit ebc69e897e17 ("Revert "block, bfq:
honor already-setup queue merges""). Yet, the reverted commit was not
the one introducing the bug. In fact, it actually triggered a UAF
introduced by a different commit, and now fixed by commit d29bd41428cf
("block, bfq: reset last_bfqq_created on group change").

So, there is no point in keeping commit 2d52c58b9c9b ("block, bfq:
honor already-setup queue merges") out. This commit restores it.

[1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=214503

Reported-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211125181510.15004-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index dfd55037dc6f..a9f42df92ea3 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -2155,6 +2155,15 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq)
 	 * are likely to increase the throughput.
 	 */
 	bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq;
+	/*
+	 * The above assignment schedules the following redirections:
+	 * each time some I/O for bfqq arrives, the process that
+	 * generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
+	 * associated with new_bfqq. Here we increases new_bfqq->ref
+	 * in advance, adding the number of processes that are
+	 * expected to be associated with new_bfqq as they happen to
+	 * issue I/O.
+	 */
 	new_bfqq->ref += process_refs;
 	return new_bfqq;
 }
@@ -2214,6 +2223,10 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 {
 	struct bfq_queue *in_service_bfqq, *new_bfqq;
 
+	/* if a merge has already been setup, then proceed with that first */
+	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
+		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
+
 	/*
 	 * Prevent bfqq from being merged if it has been created too
 	 * long ago. The idea is that true cooperating processes, and
@@ -2228,9 +2241,6 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 	if (bfq_too_late_for_merging(bfqq))
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
-		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
-
 	if (!io_struct || unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq))
 		return NULL;
 
-- 
2.34.1