From: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
"Christian Brauner (Amutable)" <brauner@kernel.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 6.6.y 2/2] writeback: fix race between cgroup_writeback_umount() and inode_switch_wbs()
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 13:50:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260716175030.804337-2-sashal@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260716175030.804337-1-sashal@kernel.org>
From: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>
[ Upstream commit cba38ec4cbd3a7b8b942a8d52531a05be8a9ff0d ]
When a container exits, the following BUG_ON() is occasionally triggered:
==================================================================
VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of sdb (ext4)
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/super.c:695!
CPU: 3 PID: 6 Comm: containerd-shim Tainted: G OE K 6.6 #1
pstate: 63400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
pc : generic_shutdown_super+0xf0/0x100
lr : generic_shutdown_super+0xf0/0x100
Call trace:
generic_shutdown_super+0xf0/0x100
kill_block_super+0x20/0x48
ext4_kill_sb+0x28/0x60
deactivate_locked_super+0x54/0x130
deactivate_super+0x84/0xa0
cleanup_mnt+0xa4/0x140
__cleanup_mnt+0x18/0x28
task_work_run+0x78/0xe0
do_notify_resume+0x204/0x240
==================================================================
The root cause is a race between cgroup_writeback_umount() and
inode_switch_wbs()/cleanup_offline_cgwb(). There is a window between
inode_prepare_wbs_switch() returning true and the subsequent
wb_queue_isw() call. Following is the process that triggers the issue:
CPU A (umount) | CPU B (writeback)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
inode_switch_wbs/cleanup_offline_cgwb
atomic_inc(&isw_nr_in_flight)
inode_prepare_wbs_switch
-> passes SB_ACTIVE check
__iget(inode)
generic_shutdown_super
sb->s_flags &= ~SB_ACTIVE
cgroup_writeback_umount(sb)
smp_mb()
atomic_read(&isw_nr_in_flight)
rcu_barrier()
-> no pending RCU callbacks
flush_workqueue(isw_wq)
-> nothing queued, returns
evict_inodes(sb)
-> Inode skipped as isw still holds a ref.
sop->put_super(sb)
/* destroys percpu counters */
-> VFS: Busy inodes after unmount!
wb_queue_isw()
queue_work(isw_wq, ...)
/* later in work function */
inode_switch_wbs_work_fn
process_inode_switch_wbs
iput() -> evict
percpu_counter_dec() // UAF!
Fix this by extending the RCU read-side critical section in
inode_switch_wbs() and cleanup_offline_cgwb() to cover from
inode_prepare_wbs_switch() through wb_queue_isw(). Since there is
no sleep in this window, rcu_read_lock() can be used. Then add a
synchronize_rcu() in cgroup_writeback_umount() before the existing
rcu_barrier(), so that all in-flight switchers that have passed the
SB_ACTIVE check have completed queue_work() before flush_workqueue()
is called.
The existing rcu_barrier() is intentionally retained so this fix can
be backported unchanged to stable kernels (5.10.y, 6.6.y, ...) that
still queue switches via queue_rcu_work(). It is a no-op on current
mainline (since commit e1b849cfa6b6 ("writeback: Avoid contention on
wb->list_lock when switching inodes")) and is removed in a follow-up
patch.
Fixes: a1a0e23e4903 ("writeback: flush inode cgroup wb switches instead of pinning super_block")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/mxnjq2l6guusfchvauxr3v7c4bwjasybxlleqbbh4efloeqspz@iqylk76ohufz
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>
Link: https://patch.msgid.link/20260521095016.2791354-2-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner (Amutable) <brauner@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 150f8605e76709..9582817098517b 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -625,12 +625,19 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inode *inode, int new_wb_id)
atomic_inc(&isw_nr_in_flight);
- /* find and pin the new wb */
+ /*
+ * Paired with synchronize_rcu() in cgroup_writeback_umount():
+ * holding rcu_read_lock across inode_prepare_wbs_switch()
+ * (covering the SB_ACTIVE check and the inode grab) and
+ * wb_queue_isw() ensures synchronize_rcu() cannot return until
+ * the work is queued, so the subsequent flush_workqueue() will
+ * wait for the switch.
+ */
rcu_read_lock();
+ /* find and pin the new wb */
memcg_css = css_from_id(new_wb_id, &memory_cgrp_subsys);
if (memcg_css && !css_tryget(memcg_css))
memcg_css = NULL;
- rcu_read_unlock();
if (!memcg_css)
goto out_free;
@@ -645,9 +652,11 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inode *inode, int new_wb_id)
isw->inodes[0] = inode;
wb_queue_isw(new_wb, isw);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return;
out_free:
+ rcu_read_unlock();
atomic_dec(&isw_nr_in_flight);
if (new_wb)
wb_put(new_wb);
@@ -706,6 +715,14 @@ bool cleanup_offline_cgwb(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
new_wb = &wb->bdi->wb; /* wb_get() is noop for bdi's wb */
nr = 0;
+ /*
+ * Paired with synchronize_rcu() in cgroup_writeback_umount().
+ * Holding rcu_read_lock across the SB_ACTIVE check, the inode grab
+ * and wb_queue_isw() ensures synchronize_rcu() cannot return until
+ * the work is queued, so the subsequent flush_workqueue() will wait
+ * for the switch.
+ */
+ rcu_read_lock();
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
/*
* In addition to the inodes that have completed writeback, also switch
@@ -723,6 +740,7 @@ bool cleanup_offline_cgwb(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
/* no attached inodes? bail out */
if (nr == 0) {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
atomic_dec(&isw_nr_in_flight);
wb_put(new_wb);
kfree(isw);
@@ -730,6 +748,7 @@ bool cleanup_offline_cgwb(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
}
wb_queue_isw(new_wb, isw);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
return restart;
}
@@ -1162,6 +1181,14 @@ void cgroup_writeback_umount(void)
smp_mb();
if (atomic_read(&isw_nr_in_flight)) {
+ /*
+ * Paired with rcu_read_lock() in inode_switch_wbs() and
+ * cleanup_offline_cgwb(). synchronize_rcu() waits for any
+ * in-flight switcher that already passed the SB_ACTIVE check
+ * to finish queueing its work, so flush_workqueue() below
+ * will then drain it.
+ */
+ synchronize_rcu();
/*
* Use rcu_barrier() to wait for all pending callbacks to
* ensure that all in-flight wb switches are in the workqueue.
--
2.53.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-16 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-14 14:48 FAILED: patch "[PATCH] writeback: fix race between cgroup_writeback_umount() and" failed to apply to 6.6-stable tree gregkh
2026-07-16 17:50 ` [PATCH 6.6.y 1/2] writeback: Avoid contention on wb->list_lock when switching inodes Sasha Levin
2026-07-16 17:50 ` Sasha Levin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260716175030.804337-2-sashal@kernel.org \
--to=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=libaokun@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.