linux-kernel - [PATCH] drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250627095728.800688-1-christoph.boehmwalder@linbit.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2025 11:57:28 +0200
From: Christoph Böhmwalder <christoph.boehmwalder@...bit.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>,
	Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>,
	Lars Ellenberg <lars@...bit.com>,
	Christoph Böhmwalder <christoph.boehmwalder@...bit.com>
Subject: [PATCH] drbd: add missing kref_get in handle_write_conflicts

From: Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>

With `two-primaries` enabled, DRBD tries to detect "concurrent" writes
and handle write conflicts, so that even if you write to the same sector
simultaneously on both nodes, they end up with the identical data once
the writes are completed.

In handling "superseeded" writes, we forgot a kref_get,
resulting in a premature drbd_destroy_device and use after free,
and further to kernel crashes with symptoms.

Relevance: No one should use DRBD as a random data generator, and apparently
all users of "two-primaries" handle concurrent writes correctly on layer up.
That is cluster file systems use some distributed lock manager,
and live migration in virtualization environments stops writes on one node
before starting writes on the other node.

Which means that other than for "test cases",
this code path is never taken in real life.

FYI, in DRBD 9, things are handled differently nowadays.  We still detect
"write conflicts", but no longer try to be smart about them.
We decided to disconnect hard instead: upper layers must not submit concurrent
writes. If they do, that's their fault.

Signed-off-by: Sarah Newman <srn@...mr.com>
Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars@...bit.com>
Signed-off-by: Christoph Böhmwalder <christoph.boehmwalder@...bit.com>
---
 drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c | 6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
index e5a2e5f7887b..975024cf03c5 100644
--- a/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
+++ b/drivers/block/drbd/drbd_receiver.c
@@ -2500,7 +2500,11 @@ static int handle_write_conflicts(struct drbd_device *device,
 			peer_req->w.cb = superseded ? e_send_superseded :
 						   e_send_retry_write;
 			list_add_tail(&peer_req->w.list, &device->done_ee);
-			queue_work(connection->ack_sender, &peer_req->peer_device->send_acks_work);
+			/* put is in drbd_send_acks_wf() */
+			kref_get(&device->kref);
+			if (!queue_work(connection->ack_sender,
+					&peer_req->peer_device->send_acks_work))
+				kref_put(&device->kref, drbd_destroy_device);

 			err = -ENOENT;
 			goto out;

base-commit: 456ef6804f232f3b2f60147046e05500147b0099
-- 
2.49.0