[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZQzpOhe6Rk3pOtBc@fedora>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 09:09:14 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Saranya Muruganandam <saranyamohan@...gle.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Zhang Wensheng <zhangwensheng@...weicloud.com>,
Zhong Jinghua <zhongjinghua@...wei.com>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix use-after-free of q->q_usage_counter
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:20:12AM -0700, Saranya Muruganandam wrote:
> From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
>
> commit d36a9ea5e7766961e753ee38d4c331bbe6ef659b upstream.
>
> For blk-mq, queue release handler is usually called after
> blk_mq_freeze_queue_wait() returns. However, the
> q_usage_counter->release() handler may not be run yet at that time, so
> this can cause a use-after-free.
>
> Fix the issue by moving percpu_ref_exit() into blk_free_queue_rcu().
> Since ->release() is called with rcu read lock held, it is agreed that
> the race should be covered in caller per discussion from the two links.
>
> Backport-notes: Not a clean cherry-pick since a lot has changed,
> however essentially the same fix.
>
> Reported-by: Zhang Wensheng <zhangwensheng@...weicloud.com>
> Reported-by: Zhong Jinghua <zhongjinghua@...wei.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/Y5prfOjyyjQKUrtH@T590/T/#u
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y4%2FmzMd4evRg9yDi@fedora/
> Cc: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
> Cc: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
> Fixes: 2b0d3d3e4fcf ("percpu_ref: reduce memory footprint of percpu_ref in fast path")
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20221215021629.74870-1-ming.lei@redhat.com
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> Signed-off-by: Saranya Muruganandam <saranyamohan@...gle.com>
> ---
> block/blk-core.c | 2 --
> block/blk-sysfs.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> index d0d0dd8151f7..e5eeec801f56 100644
> --- a/block/blk-core.c
> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> @@ -414,8 +414,6 @@ void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> blk_mq_sched_free_requests(q);
> mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
>
> - percpu_ref_exit(&q->q_usage_counter);
> -
> /* @q is and will stay empty, shutdown and put */
> blk_put_queue(q);
> }
> diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> index 8c5816364dd1..9174137a913c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
> +++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> @@ -726,6 +726,8 @@ static void blk_free_queue_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> {
> struct request_queue *q = container_of(rcu_head, struct request_queue,
> rcu_head);
> +
> + percpu_ref_exit(&q->q_usage_counter);
> kmem_cache_free(blk_requestq_cachep, q);
> }
Looks fine.
BTW, you should have provided target stable tree release info, otherwise how
you expect people to review?
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists