[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16613534-5482-23c5-fa97-cfaedecab3d7@linux.dev>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 17:39:32 +0800
From: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, agk@...hat.com,
snitzer@...nel.org, song@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] md: protect md_thread with a new disk level spin
lock
On 3/15/23 14:18, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> Our test reports a uaf for 'mddev->sync_thread':
>
> T1 T2
> md_start_sync
> md_register_thread
> raid1d
> md_check_recovery
> md_reap_sync_thread
> md_unregister_thread
> kfree
>
> md_wakeup_thread
> wake_up
> ->sync_thread was freed
Better to provide the relevant uaf (user after free perhaps you mean)
log from the test.
> Currently, a global spinlock 'pers_lock' is borrowed to protect
> 'mddev->thread', this problem can be fixed likewise, however, there might
> be similar problem for other md_thread, and I really don't like the idea to
> borrow a global lock.
>
> This patch use a disk level spinlock to protect md_thread in relevant apis.
It is array level I think, and you probably want to remove the comment.
* pers_lockdoes extra service to protect accesses to
* mddev->thread when the mutex cannot be held.
Thanks,
Guoqing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists