[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d503d5ff-4bc5-2bd0-00d3-cd7b0a0724cb@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 06:25:17 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REPORT] Use-after-free Read in __fdget_raw in v5.10.y
On 5/17/22 6:24 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/22 5:41 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> Good afternoon Jens, Pavel, et al.,
>>>
>>> Not sure if you are presently aware, but there appears to be a
>>> use-after-free issue affecting the io_uring worker driver (fs/io-wq.c)
>>> in Stable v5.10.y.
>>>
>>> The full sysbot report can be seen below [0].
>>>
>>> The C-reproducer has been placed below that [1].
>>>
>>> I had great success running this reproducer in an infinite loop.
>>>
>>> My colleague reverse-bisected the fixing commit to:
>>>
>>> commit fb3a1f6c745ccd896afadf6e2d6f073e871d38ba
>>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>>> Date: Fri Feb 26 09:47:20 2021 -0700
>>>
>>> io-wq: have manager wait for all workers to exit
>>>
>>> Instead of having to wait separately on workers and manager, just have
>>> the manager wait on the workers. We use an atomic_t for the reference
>>> here, as we need to start at 0 and allow increment from that. Since the
>>> number of workers is naturally capped by the allowed nr of processes,
>>> and that uses an int, there is no risk of overflow.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>>>
>>> fs/io-wq.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> Does this fix it:
>>
>> commit 886d0137f104a440d9dfa1d16efc1db06c9a2c02
>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> Date: Fri Mar 5 12:59:30 2021 -0700
>>
>> io-wq: fix race in freeing 'wq' and worker access
>>
>> Looks like it didn't make it into 5.10-stable, but we can certainly
>> rectify that.
>
> Thanks for your quick response Jens.
>
> This patch doesn't apply cleanly to v5.10.y.
This is probably why it never made it into 5.10-stable :-/
> I'll have a go at back-porting it. Please bear with me.
Let me know if you into issues with that and I can help out.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists