netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/8] aio: make sure file is pinned

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]

Date:   Thu, 7 Mar 2019 00:48:28 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com,
        ktkhai@...tuozzo.com, kyeongdon kim <kyeongdon.kim@....com>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, pabeni@...hat.com,
        syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
        Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        zhengbin <zhengbin13@...wei.com>, bcrl@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-aio@...ck.org, houtao1@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] aio: make sure file is pinned

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 12:41:59AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 04:23:04PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:03 PM Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> > >
> > > "aio: remove the extra get_file/fput pair in io_submit_one" was
> > > too optimistic - not dereferencing file pointer after e.g.
> > > ->write_iter() returns is not enough; that reference might've been
> > > the only thing that kept alive objects that are referenced
> > > *before* the method returns.  Such as inode, for example...
> > 
> > I still; think that this is actually _worse_ than just having the
> > refcount on the req instead.
> > 
> > As it is, we have that completely insane "ref can go away from under
> > us", because nothing keeps that around, which then causes all those
> > other crazy issues with "woken" etc garbage.
> >
> > I think we should be able to get rid of those entirely. Make the
> > poll() case just return zero if it has added the entry successfully to
> > poll queue.  No need for "woken", no need for all that odd "oh, but
> > now the req might no longer exist".
> 
> Not really.  Sure, you can get rid of "might no longer exist"
> considerations, but you still need to decide which way do we want to
> handle it.  There are 3 cases:
> 	* it's already taken up; don't put on the list for possible
> cancel, don't call aio_complete().
> 	* will eventually be woken up; put on the list for possible
> cancle, don't call aio_complete().
> 	* wanted to be on several queues, fortunately not woken up
> yet.  Make sure it's gone from queue, return an error.
> 	* none of the above, and ->poll() has reported what we wanted
> from the very beginning.  Remove from queue, call aio_complete().
> 
> You'll need some logics to handle that.  I can buy the "if we know
> the req is still alive, we can check if it's still queued instead of
> separate woken flag", but but it won't win you much ;-/

If anything, the one good reason for refcount would be the risk that
some ->read_iter() or ->write_iter() will try to dereference iocb
after having decided to return -EIOCBQUEUED and submitted all bios.
I think that doesn't happen, but making sure it doesn't would be
a good argument in favour of that refcount.