| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 16:28:23 +0000
From: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: "hch@....de" <hch@....de>, "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"yukuai
(C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 for-6.10/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
and loop open
Hi Kuai,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 7:36 AM
> To: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>; linux-
> block@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Cc: yukuai1@...weicloud.com; hch@....de; axboe@...nel.dk; yukuai (C)
> <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 for-6.10/block] loop: Fix a race between loop detach
> and loop open
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2024/05/30 4:02, Gulam Mohamed 写道:
> > 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 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
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gulam Mohamed <gulam.mohamed@...cle.com>
> > ---
> > v3<-v2:
> > Re-introduced the loop->lo_refcnt to take care of the case where we
> > race when the Lo_rundown is set after the lo_open() function releases
> > the lo_mutex lock
> >
> > drivers/block/loop.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c index
> > 28a95fd366fe..60f61bf8dbd1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ struct loop_func_table;
> >
> > struct loop_device {
> > int lo_number;
> > + atomic_t lo_refcnt;
> > loff_t lo_offset;
> > loff_t lo_sizelimit;
> > int lo_flags;
> > @@ -1242,7 +1243,7 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
> > * <dev>/do something like mkfs/losetup -d <dev> causing the losetup
> -d
> > * command to fail with EBUSY.
> > */
> > - if (disk_openers(lo->lo_disk) > 1) {
> > + if (atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 1) {
> > lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
> > loop_global_unlock(lo, true);
> > return 0;
> > @@ -1717,14 +1718,31 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device
> *bdev, blk_mode_t mode,
> > }
> > #endif
> >
> > -static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk)
> > +static int lo_open(struct gendisk *disk, blk_mode_t mode)
> > {
> > struct loop_device *lo = disk->private_data;
> > + int err;
> >
> > - if (disk_openers(disk) > 0)
> > - return;
> > + err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + if (lo->lo_state == Lo_deleting || lo->lo_state == Lo_rundown)
> > + err = -ENXIO;
> > + else
> > + atomic_inc(&lo->lo_refcnt);
> > + mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > + return err;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk) {
> > + struct loop_device *lo = disk->private_data;
> >
> > mutex_lock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > + if (atomic_dec_return(&lo->lo_refcnt))
> > + goto out_unlock;
>
> So, both add, dec and test are inside the lo_mutex, then there is no need to
> use atomic value.
Yes, you are correct. Will change this to "int" in next version.
Thanks & Regards,
Gulam Mohamed.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
> > +
> > if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound && (lo->lo_flags &
> LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR)) {
> > lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
> > mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > @@ -1735,6 +1753,7 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk)
> > __loop_clr_fd(lo, true);
> > return;
> > }
> > +out_unlock:
> > mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1752,6 +1771,7 @@ static void lo_free_disk(struct gendisk *disk)
> >
> > static const struct block_device_operations lo_fops = {
> > .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > + .open = lo_open,
> > .release = lo_release,
> > .ioctl = lo_ioctl,
> > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > @@ -2064,6 +2084,7 @@ static int loop_add(int i)
> > */
> > if (!part_shift)
> > set_bit(GD_SUPPRESS_PART_SCAN, &disk->state);
> > + atomic_set(&lo->lo_refcnt, 0);
> > mutex_init(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > lo->lo_number = i;
> > spin_lock_init(&lo->lo_lock);
> > @@ -2158,7 +2179,7 @@ static int loop_control_remove(int idx)
> > ret = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > if (ret)
> > goto mark_visible;
> > - if (lo->lo_state != Lo_unbound || disk_openers(lo->lo_disk) > 0) {
> > + if (lo->lo_state != Lo_unbound || atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 0) {
> > mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > ret = -EBUSY;
> > goto mark_visible;
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists