linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/slab_common: Deleting kobject in kmem_cache_destroy() without holding slab_mutex/cpu_hotplug

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: <521f2fbe-3732-0829-3562-2b113eb7b7e4@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 19:05:37 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slab_common: Deleting kobject in kmem_cache_destroy()
 without holding slab_mutex/cpu_hotplug_lock

On 8/9/22 18:25, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:59:01PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> A circular locking problem is reported by lockdep due to the following
>> circular locking dependency.
>>
>>    +--> cpu_hotplug_lock --> slab_mutex --> kn->active#126 --+
>>    |                                                         |
>>    +---------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>> One way to break this circular locking chain is to avoid holding
>> cpu_hotplug_lock and slab_mutex while deleting the kobject in
>> sysfs_slab_unlink() which should be equivalent to doing a write_lock
>> and write_unlock pair of the kn->active virtual lock.
>>
>> Since the kobject structures are not protected by slab_mutex or the
>> cpu_hotplug_lock, we can certainly release those locks before doing
>> the delete operation.
>>
>> Move sysfs_slab_unlink() and sysfs_slab_release() to the newly
>> created kmem_cache_release() and call it outside the slab_mutex &
>> cpu_hotplug_lock critical sections.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
>> ---
>>   mm/slab_common.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>>   1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
>> index 17996649cfe3..9274fb03563e 100644
>> --- a/mm/slab_common.c
>> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
>> @@ -392,6 +392,30 @@ kmem_cache_create(const char *name, unsigned int size, unsigned int align,
>>   }
>>   EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmem_cache_create);
>>   
>> +#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
>> +/*
>> + * For a given kmem_cache, kmem_cache_destroy() should only be called
>> + * once or there will be a use-after-free problem. The actual deletion
>> + * and release of the kobject does not need slab_mutex or cpu_hotplug_lock
>> + * protection. So they are now done without holding those locks.
>> + */
>> +static void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s, bool workfn)
>> +{
>> +	if (!workfn)
>> +		sysfs_slab_unlink(s);
>> +
>> +	if (workfn || !(s->flags & SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU))
>> +		sysfs_slab_release(s);
>> +	else
>> +		schedule_work(&slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_work);
>> +}
>> +#else
>> +static inline void kmem_cache_release(struct kmem_cache *s, bool workfn)
>> +{
>> +	slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
>> +}
>> +#endif
>> +
>>   static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>>   {
>>   	LIST_HEAD(to_destroy);
>> @@ -418,11 +442,7 @@ static void slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>>   	list_for_each_entry_safe(s, s2, &to_destroy, list) {
>>   		debugfs_slab_release(s);
>>   		kfence_shutdown_cache(s);
>> -#ifdef SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS
>> -		sysfs_slab_release(s);
>> -#else
>> -		slab_kmem_cache_release(s);
>> -#endif
>> +		kmem_cache_release(s, true);
> Hi Waiman!
>
> As I understand, with SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS kmem_cache_release() can effectively call
> into itself: first it's called with workfn == false from shutdown_cache() and
> then optionally it's scheduled to call itself from a work context with
> workfn == true just to call sysfs_slab_release(). Is it right?
>
> If !SLAB_SUPPORTS_SYSFS, shutdown_cache() optionally adds kmem_cache to the
> slab_caches_to_rcu_destroy list and calls kmem_cache_release(s, false) ==
> slab_kmem_cache_release(). How it's then removed from the list?
>
> Overall the patch is a bit hard to follow (not like this code was easy to read
> before, so can't blame the patch). But I wonder if it will make things simpler
> to decouple kmem_cache_release(workfn == true) and kmem_cache_release(workfn == false)
> into 2 different helpers? Or at least add a bold comment on how things are supposed
> to work.
>
> Thanks!

You are right. I agree that it can be hard to read. Simpler is always 
better. Will post a v2 with the change suggested.

Thanks,
Longman