[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5jSllwwBdmQ1jQz@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2022 09:29:26 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
"Dennis Zhou (Facebook)" <dennisszhou@...il.com>,
Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-block v3 1/2] bdi, blk-cgroup: Fix potential UAF of blkcg
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 01:44:45PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> Commit 59b57717fff8 ("blkcg: delay blkg destruction until after
> writeback has finished") delayed call to blkcg_destroy_blkgs() to
> cgwb_release_workfn(). However, it is done after a css_put() of blkcg
> which may be the final put that causes the blkcg to be freed as RCU
> read lock isn't held.
>
> Another place where blkcg_destroy_blkgs() can be called indirectly via
> blkcg_unpin_online() is from the offline_css() function called from
> css_killed_work_fn(). Over there, the potentially final css_put() call
> is issued after offline_css().
>
> By adding a css_tryget() into blkcg_destroy_blkgs() and warning its
> failure, the following stack trace was produced in a test system on
> bootup.
This doesn't agree with the code anymore. Otherwise
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists