linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: do not push freeing inode to b_dirty

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: <20221114192129.zkmubc6pmruuzkc7@quack3>
Date:   Mon, 14 Nov 2022 20:21:29 +0100
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Svyatoslav Feldsherov <feldsherov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
        syzbot+6ba92bd00d5093f7e371@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        oferz@...gle.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: do not push freeing inode to b_dirty_time list

On Mon 14-11-22 19:43:54, Svyatoslav Feldsherov wrote:
> Thank you for looking into this!
> 
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 12:46 PM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun 13-11-22 17:24:39, Svyatoslav Feldsherov wrote:
> > > After commit cbfecb927f42 ("fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode
> > > already has I_DIRTY_INODE") writeiback_single_inode can push inode with
> > > I_DIRTY_TIME set to b_dirty_time list. In case of freeing inode with
> > > I_DIRTY_TIME set this can happened after deletion of inode io_list at
> > > evict. Stack trace is following.
> > >
> > > evict
> > > fat_evict_inode
> > > fat_truncate_blocks
> > > fat_flush_inodes
> > > writeback_inode
> > > sync_inode_metadata
> > > writeback_single_inode
> > >
> > > This will lead to use after free in flusher thread.
> > >
> > > Fixes: cbfecb927f42 ("fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has I_DIRTY_INODE")
> > > Reported-by: syzbot+6ba92bd00d5093f7e371@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Feldsherov <feldsherov@...gle.com>
> >
> > Thanks for the analysis! I was scratching my head over this syzbot report
> > for a while and it didn't occur to me somebody could be calling
> > writeback_single_inode() from the .evict callback.
> >
> > Also what contributes to the problem is that FAT calls
> > sync_inode_metadata(inode, 0) so it is not marking this final flush as data
> > integrity sync and so we happily leave the I_DIRTY_TIME bit set.
> >
> > > diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > > index 443f83382b9b..31c93cbdb3fe 100644
> > > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > > @@ -1718,7 +1718,7 @@ static int writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> > >        */
> > >       if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL))
> > >               inode_cgwb_move_to_attached(inode, wb);
> > > -     else if (!(inode->i_state & I_SYNC_QUEUED)) {
> > > +     else if (!(inode->i_state & (I_SYNC_QUEUED | I_FREEING))) {
> > >               if ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
> > >                       redirty_tail_locked(inode, wb);
> > >               else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) {
> >
> > So even calling inode_cgwb_move_to_attached() is not safe when I_FREEING is
> > already set. So I belive the I_FREEING bit check needs to be before this
> > whole if block.
> 
> Agree, let me move the I_FREEING check before this if block.
> The commit I am fixing didn't change this codepath, so I suspect there is an
> implicit invariant which keeps inode_cgwb_move_to_attached call safe.
> But I am 100% in favor of making I_FREEING check explicitly.

Actually, as I've looked into fat_evict_inode() I don't see anything making
that safe except for the fact that it may be more difficult for syzbot to
excercise the per-memcg writeback path...

> > I also think we should add some assertions into i_io_list handling
> > functions to complain if I_FREEING bit is set to catch these problems
> > earlier which means to be also more careful in __mark_inode_dirty(). But
> > this is for a separate cleanup.
> 
> Sounds reasonable. Will look into that afterwards.

Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR