linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] md: fix duplicate filename for rdev

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 24 May 2023 09:33:06 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc:     pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, neilb@...e.de,
        linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] md: fix duplicate filename for rdev

Hi,

在 2023/05/24 2:05, Song Liu 写道:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:30 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>
>> Commit 5792a2856a63 ("[PATCH] md: avoid a deadlock when removing a device
>> from an md array via sysfs") delays the deletion of rdev, however, this
>> introduces a window that rdev can be added again while the deletion is
>> not done yet, and sysfs will complain about duplicate filename.
>>
>> Follow up patches try to fix this problem by flushing workqueue, however,
>> flush_rdev_wq() is just dead code, the progress in
>> md_kick_rdev_from_array():
>>
>> 1) list_del_rcu(&rdev->same_set);
>> 2) synchronize_rcu();
>> 3) queue_work(md_rdev_misc_wq, &rdev->del_work);
>>
>> So in flush_rdev_wq(), if rdev is found in the list, work_pending() can
>> never pass, in the meantime, if work is queued, then rdev can never be
>> found in the list.
>>
>> flush_rdev_wq() can be replaced by flush_workqueue() directly, however,
>> this approach is not good:
>> - the workqueue is global, this synchronization for all raid disks is
>>    not necessary.
>> - flush_workqueue can't be called under 'reconfig_mutex', there is still
>>    a small window between flush_workqueue() and mddev_lock() that other
>>    contexts can queue new work, hence the problem is not solved completely.
>>
>> sysfs already has apis to support delete itself through writer, and
>> these apis, specifically sysfs_break/unbreak_active_protection(), is used
>> to support deleting rdev synchronously. Therefore, the above commit can be
>> reverted, and sysfs duplicate filename can be avoided.
>>
>> A new mdadm regression test is proposed as well([1]).
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-raid/20230428062845.1975462-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/
>> Fixes: 5792a2856a63 ("[PATCH] md: avoid a deadlock when removing a device from an md array via sysfs")
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> 
> Thanks for the fix! I made the following changes and applied it
> to md-next:
> 
> 1. remove md_rdev->del_work, which is not used any more;
> 2. change list_empty_safe to list_empty protected by the mutex, as
>     list_empty_safe doesn't seem safe here.
Yes, this make sense, we must make sure caller won't see stale rdev
through sysfs:

t1: remove rdev			t2:
mutex_lock(reconfig_mutex)
list_add
mutex_unlock(reconfig_mutex)
				mutex_lock(reconfig_mutex)
				mutex_unlock(reconfig_mutex)
				mutex_lock(delete_mutex)
				list_del_init
list_empty_careful
  -> list is empty now, return, caller will think rdev is removed,
  however, since export_rdev is not called yet, adding this rdev again
  will fail.
				kobject_del

hold mutex is safe, and I think performance should be ok because remove
rdev is not hot path. If we don't want to hold a new mutex in hot path,
perhaps list_empty_careful can work with following changes, remove rdev
from the list after sysfs entries is removed:

diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index 296885798a2b..84dce5822f91 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -758,8 +758,8 @@ static void md_free_rdev(struct mddev *mddev)

         mutex_lock(&mddev->delete_mutex);
         list_for_each_entry_safe(rdev, tmp, &mddev->deleting, same_set) {
-               list_del_init(&rdev->same_set);
                 kobject_del(&rdev->kobj);
+               list_del_init(&rdev->same_set);
                 export_rdev(rdev);
         }
         mutex_unlock(&mddev->delete_mutex);

> 
> Please let me know if either change doesn't make sense.
> 
> Thanks,
> Song
> .
>