| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3c1c654b-a80c-c257-4a36-863c4b148615@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2024 09:13:09 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>,
Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "shinichiro.kawasaki@....com" <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>,
"chaitanyak@...dia.com" <chaitanyak@...dia.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 for-6.10/block 1/2] loop: Fix a race between loop
detach and loop open
Hi,
在 2024/05/23 3:12, Gulam Mohamed 写道:
> Hi Kuai,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 8:01 AM
>> To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>; Gulam Mohamed
>> <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>; linux-block@...r.kernel.org; linux-
>> kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: shinichiro.kawasaki@....com; chaitanyak@...dia.com; hch@....de;
>> yukuai (C) <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 for-6.10/block 1/2] loop: Fix a race between loop
>> detach and loop open
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2024/05/22 9:39, Jens Axboe 写道:
>>> On 5/21/24 4:42 PM, Gulam Mohamed wrote:
>>>> Description
>>>> ===========
>>>>
>>>> 1. Userspace sends the command "losetup -d" which uses the open() call
>>>> to open the device
>>>> 2. Kernel receives the ioctl command "LOOP_CLR_FD" which calls the
>>>> function loop_clr_fd()
>>>> 3. If LOOP_CLR_FD is the first command received at the time, then the
>>>> AUTOCLEAR flag is not set and deletion of the
>>>> loop device proceeds ahead and scans the partitions (drop/add
>>>> partitions)
>>>>
>>>> if (disk_openers(lo->lo_disk) > 1) {
>>>> lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
>>>> loop_global_unlock(lo, true);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> 4. Before scanning partitions, it will check to see if any partition of
>>>> the loop device is currently opened
>>>> 5. If any partition is opened, then it will return EBUSY:
>>>>
>>>> if (disk->open_partitions)
>>>> return -EBUSY;
>>>> 6. So, after receiving the "LOOP_CLR_FD" command and just before the
>> above
>>>> check for open_partitions, if any other command
>>>> (like blkid) opens any partition of the loop device, then the partition
>>>> scan will not proceed and EBUSY is returned as shown in above code
>>>> 7. But in "__loop_clr_fd()", this EBUSY error is not propagated
>>>> 8. We have noticed that this is causing the partitions of the loop to
>>>> remain stale even after the loop device is detached resulting in the
>>>> IO errors on the partitions
>>>>
>>>> Fix
>>>> ---
>>>> Re-introduce the lo_open() call to restrict any process to open the
>>>> loop device when its being detached
>>>>
>>>> Test case
>>>> =========
>>>> Test case involves the following two scripts:
>>>>
>>>> script1.sh
>>>> ----------
>>>> while [ 1 ];
>>>> do
>>>> losetup -P -f /home/opt/looptest/test10.img
>>>> blkid /dev/loop0p1
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> script2.sh
>>>> ----------
>>>> while [ 1 ];
>>>> do
>>>> losetup -d /dev/loop0
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> Without fix, the following IO errors have been observed:
>>>>
>>>> kernel: __loop_clr_fd: partition scan of loop0 failed (rc=-16)
>>>> kernel: I/O error, dev loop0, sector 20971392 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x80700
>>>> phys_seg 1 prio class 0
>>>> kernel: I/O error, dev loop0, sector 108868 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0
>>>> phys_seg 1 prio class 0
>>>> kernel: Buffer I/O error on dev loop0p1, logical block 27201, async page
>>>> read
>>>>
>>>> V1->V2:
>>>> Added a test case, 010, in blktests in tests/loop/
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/block/loop.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c index
>>>> 28a95fd366fe..9a235d8c062d 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
>>>> @@ -1717,6 +1717,24 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device
>> *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
>>>> }
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> +static int lo_open(struct gendisk *disk, blk_mode_t mode) {
>>>> + struct loop_device *lo = disk->private_data;
>>>> + int err;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!lo)
>>>> + return -ENXIO;
>>>> +
>>>> + err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_mutex);
>>>> + if (err)
>>>> + return err;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (lo->lo_state == Lo_rundown)
>>>> + err = -ENXIO;
>>>> + mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
>>
>> This doesn't fix the problem completely, there is still a race window.
>>
>> lo_release
>> if (disk_openers(disk) > 0)
>> reutrn
>> -> no openers now
>> lo_open
>> if (lo->lo_state == Lo_rundown)
>> -> no set yet
>> open succeed
>> mutex_lock(lo_mutex)
>> lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown
>> mutex_unlock(lo_mutex)
>> __loop_clr_fd
> We have noticed that, at block layer, both open() and release() are protected by gendisk->open_mutex.
> So, this race may not happen. Can you please let me know if I understand correctly?
Yes, __loop_clr_fd from lo_release can't concurrent with lo_open.
>>
>> And with the respect, loop_clr_fd() has the same problem.
Did you check __loop_clr_fd from lo_ioctl?
Thanks,
Kuai
>>
>> I think probably loop need a open counter for itself.
> We are looking to see how to handle this case
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kuai
>>
>>>> + return err;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Most of this function uses spaces rather than tabs.
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists