linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] RDMA/rxe: Fix race in do

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250918121054.GF10800@unreal>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2025 15:10:54 +0300
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Gui-Dong Han <hanguidong02@...il.com>
Cc: "yanjun.zhu" <yanjun.zhu@...ux.dev>, zyjzyj2000@...il.com, jgg@...pe.ca,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	baijiaju1990@...il.com, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	"rpearsonhpe@...il.com" <rpearsonhpe@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RDMA/rxe: Fix race in do_task() when draining

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 08:02:04PM +0800, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 5:58 PM Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 12:30:56PM -0700, yanjun.zhu wrote:
> > > On 9/17/25 3:06 AM, Gui-Dong Han wrote:
> > > > When do_task() exhausts its RXE_MAX_ITERATIONS budget, it unconditionally
> > >
> > > From the source code, it will check ret value, then set it to
> > > TASK_STATE_IDLE, not unconditionally.
> > >
> > > > sets the task state to TASK_STATE_IDLE to reschedule. This overwrites
> > > > the TASK_STATE_DRAINING state that may have been concurrently set by
> > > > rxe_cleanup_task() or rxe_disable_task().
> > >
> > > From the source code, there is a spin lock to protect the state. It will not
> > > make race condition.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This race condition breaks the cleanup and disable logic, which expects
> > > > the task to stop processing new work. The cleanup code may proceed while
> > > > do_task() reschedules itself, leading to a potential use-after-free.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Can you post the call trace when this problem occurred?
> > >
> > > Hi, Jason && Leon
> > >
> > > Please comment on this problem.
> >
> > The idea to recheck task->state looks correct to me, otherwise we overwrite it unconditionally.
> > However I would write this patch slightly different (without cont = 1):
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> > index 6f8f353e95838..2ff5d7cc0a933 100644
> > --- a/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/sw/rxe/rxe_task.c
> > @@ -132,8 +132,10 @@ static void do_task(struct rxe_task *task)
> >                  * yield the cpu and reschedule the task
> >                  */
> >                 if (!ret) {
> > -                       task->state = TASK_STATE_IDLE;
> > -                       resched = 1;
> > +                       if (task->state != TASK_STATE_DRAINING) {
> > +                               task->state = TASK_STATE_IDLE;
> > +                               resched = 1;
> > +                       }
> >                         goto exit;
> >                 }
> >
> > @@ -151,7 +153,6 @@ static void do_task(struct rxe_task *task)
> >                         break;
> >
> >                 case TASK_STATE_DRAINING:
> > -                       task->state = TASK_STATE_DRAINED;
> >                         break;
> >
> >                 default:
> > (END)
> 
> Hi Leon,
> 
> Thanks for your review and for confirming the need for a fix.
> 
> Regarding your suggested patch, I believe removing the transition to
> TASK_STATE_DRAINED would cause an issue. As seen in the code and comments
> for rxe_cleanup_task() and is_done(), the cleanup process waits for the
> final TASK_STATE_DRAINED state. If the task remains stuck in DRAINING,
> the cleanup loop will never terminate.
> 
> My use of cont = 1 was intended as a minimal change. Since this
> regression was introduced during the migration from tasklets, restoring
> the pre-migration logic seemed like a reasonable approach. An alternative
> could be to set the state to TASK_STATE_DRAINED directly inside the
> if (!ret) block, and I am open to discussing the best fix.

Ahh, sorry, I misread that it is TASK_STATE_DRAINED and not TASK_STATE_DRAINING.

Thanks

> 
> Regards,
> Han