[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADZouDQJOe-JimRj8f4ELtKOzHFiz7yDqnqcpSMP8oU=RuypGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 14:24:49 +0100
From: chase xd <sl1589472800@...il.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>, io-uring@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Potiential nullptr derefence in io_do_iopoll
Dear maintainers,
I'm looking into io_uring internals and find there might be a bug in
io_do_iopoll, but I'm struggling to construct a POC due to my lack of
knowledge about the kernel internals. So maybe it's better to put it
here for discussion.
After [issuing an
SQE](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9/source/io_uring/io_uring.c#L1920)
in iopoll-enabled io_uring, if the return value is
`IOU_ISSUE_SKIP_COMPLETE` and the op supports `iopoll_queue`, the req
will be added to `ctx->iopoll_list` and later retrieved in
`io_do_iopoll`, where `iopoll` or `uring_cmd_iopoll` of the req file
op is [called](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9/source/io_uring/rw.c#L1167).
IMHO here we miss a check of whether `iopoll` or `uring_cmd_iopoll` is
implemented. A more understandable case for me is, the custom ioctl
function with [IORING_OP_URING_CMD](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11.7/source/io_uring/opdef.c#L416)
satisfies all the constraints and will go to this path if `uring_cmd`
returns `-EIOCBQUEUED`
[here](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9/source/io_uring/uring_cmd.c#L192).
So this requires that all the ops with `->uring_cmd` returning
`-EIOCBQUEUED` should support `->uring_cmd_iopoll` as well, which is
not the case for
[ublk_ch_fops](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.9/source/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c#L1967)
resulting in a nullptr-deref in `io_do_poll`. I'm wondering if this is
legit.
Note that the related code changes a bit for [newer
kernel](https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/io_uring/uring_cmd.c#L261).
Best Regards
Powered by blists - more mailing lists