linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] erofs: set SB_NODEV sb

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]

Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:57:38 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <xiang@...nel.org>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-erofs@...ts.ozlabs.org, xiang@...nel.org, chao@...nel.org,
	huyue2@...lpad.com, jefflexu@...ux.alibaba.com,
	viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	yangerkun@...wei.com, houtao1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] erofs: set SB_NODEV sb_flags when mounting with fsid

Hi Christian, Baokun,

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:23:58PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2024/4/15 21:38, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 08:17:46PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> > > When erofs_kill_sb() is called in block dev based mode, s_bdev may not have
> > > been initialised yet, and if CONFIG_EROFS_FS_ONDEMAND is enabled, it will
> > > be mistaken for fscache mode, and then attempt to free an anon_dev that has
> > > never been allocated, triggering the following warning:
> > > 
> > > ============================================
> > > ida_free called for id=0 which is not allocated.
> > > WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 926 at lib/idr.c:525 ida_free+0x134/0x140
> > > Modules linked in:
> > > CPU: 14 PID: 926 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.9.0-rc3-dirty #630
> > > RIP: 0010:ida_free+0x134/0x140
> > > Call Trace:
> > >   <TASK>
> > >   erofs_kill_sb+0x81/0x90
> > >   deactivate_locked_super+0x35/0x80
> > >   get_tree_bdev+0x136/0x1e0
> > >   vfs_get_tree+0x2c/0xf0
> > >   do_new_mount+0x190/0x2f0
> > >   [...]
> > > ============================================
> > > 
> > > To avoid this problem, add SB_NODEV to fc->sb_flags after successfully
> > > parsing the fsid, and then the superblock inherits this flag when it is
> > > allocated, so that the sb_flags can be used to distinguish whether it is
> > > in block dev based mode when calling erofs_kill_sb().
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   fs/erofs/super.c | 7 +++----
> > >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/erofs/super.c b/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > index b21bd8f78dc1..7539ce7d64bc 100644
> > > --- a/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > +++ b/fs/erofs/super.c
> > > @@ -520,6 +520,7 @@ static int erofs_fc_parse_param(struct fs_context *fc,
> > >   		ctx->fsid = kstrdup(param->string, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >   		if (!ctx->fsid)
> > >   			return -ENOMEM;
> > > +		fc->sb_flags |= SB_NODEV;
> > Hm, I wouldn't do it this way. That's an abuse of that flag imho.
> > Record the information in the erofs_fs_context if you need to.
> The stack diagram that triggers the problem is as follows, the call to
> erofs_kill_sb() fails before fill_super() has been executed, and we can
> only use super_block to determine whether it is currently in nodev
> fscahe mode or block device based mode. So if it is recorded in
> erofs_fs_context (aka fc->fs_private), we can't access the recorded data
> unless we pass fc into erofs_kill_sb() as well.
> 

If I understand correctly, from the discussion above, I think
there exists a gap between alloc_super() and sb->s_bdev is set.
But .kill_sb() can be called between them and fc is not passed
into .kill_sb().

I'm not sure how to resolve it in EROFS itself, anyway...

Thanks,
Gao Xiang