linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: list_lru: Fix NULL pointer dereference in list_lru

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]

Message-ID: <7db60e36-9c96-4938-a28d-a9745e287386@linux.dev>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 10:28:33 +0800
From: Youling Tang <youling.tang@...ux.dev>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Youling Tang <tangyouling@...inos.cn>,
 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: list_lru: Fix NULL pointer dereference in
 list_lru_add()

Hi, Kent

On 12/07/2024 23:49, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 12:28:57PM GMT, Youling Tang wrote:
>> Hi, Kent
>>
>> On 12/07/2024 12:07, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 11:25:54AM GMT, Youling Tang wrote:
>>>> From: Youling Tang <tangyouling@...inos.cn>
>>>>
>>>> Note that list_lru_from_memcg_idx() may return NULL, so it is necessary
>>>> to error handle the return value to avoid triggering NULL pointer
>>>> dereference BUG.
>>>>
>>>> The issue was triggered for discussion [1],
>>>> Link [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-bcachefs/84de6cb1-57bd-42f7-8029-4203820ef0b4@linux.dev/T/#m901bb26cdb1d9d4bacebf0d034f0a5a712cc93a6
>>> I see no explanation for why this is the correct fix, and I doubt it is.
>>> What's the real reason for the NULL lru_list_one, and why doesn't this
>>> come up on other filesystems?
>> We can break it down into two questions (independent of each other):
>> 1) Error handling is necessary when l (lru_list_one) is NULL here.
> No, you're just hiding the actual bug - since I wasn't clear, I'm naking
> this patch.
We should use kmem_cache_alloc_lru() instead of kmem_cache_alloc(),
similar to the [1] modification.

Apply the following patch to fix the problem:

diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/fs.c b/fs/bcachefs/fs.c
index f9c9a95d7d4c..79a580dfb5e1 100644
--- a/fs/bcachefs/fs.c
+++ b/fs/bcachefs/fs.c
@@ -227,7 +227,8 @@ static struct inode *bch2_alloc_inode(struct 
super_block *sb)

  static struct bch_inode_info *__bch2_new_inode(struct bch_fs *c)
  {
-       struct bch_inode_info *inode = 
kmem_cache_alloc(bch2_inode_cache, GFP_NOFS);
+       struct bch_inode_info *inode = alloc_inode_sb(c->vfs_sb, 
bch2_inode_cache, GFP_NOFS);
         if (!inode)
                 return NULL;

Link [1]: 
https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/20220228122126.37293-5-songmuchun@bytedance.com/

Thanks,
Youling.