From: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>
To: fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev
Cc: miklos@szeredi.hu, jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com,
winters.zc@antgroup.com, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] fuse: clear stale intr_entry in fuse_remove_pending_req()
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:16:41 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260728031641.2497811-1-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
Commit f8fce75fedf7 ("fuse: clear intr_entry in fuse_resend and
fuse_remove_pending_req") removes stale interrupt entries in
fuse_chan_resend() when requests are moved back to fiq->pending.
However, that cleanup only covers interrupt entries that are already
linked at scan time. It can race with a concurrent queue_interrupt()
from the request holder:
CPU 0 (holder thread) CPU 1 (resend)
--------------------- --------------
req in processing (FR_SENT=1)
signal arrives
set_bit(FR_INTERRUPTED)
test_bit(FR_SENT) -> true
queue_interrupt():
spins on fiq->lock ...
fuse_chan_resend():
set_bit(FR_PENDING)
clear_bit(FR_SENT)
spin_lock(&fiq->lock)
cleanup scan:
intr_entry not linked yet
-> list_del_init is a no-op
list_splice -> fiq->pending
spin_unlock(&fiq->lock)
... acquires fiq->lock
list_empty(&req->intr_entry) -> true
FR_FINISHED not set
-> intr_entry added to fiq->interrupts
AFTER the cleanup already ran
fatal signal arrives
fuse_remove_pending_req():
test_bit(FR_PENDING) -> true
list_del(&req->list)
__fuse_put_request
fuse_put_request (refcount -> 0)
-> req freed, intr_entry dangling
on fiq->interrupts
fuse_dev_queue_interrupt() only checks list_empty() and FR_FINISHED
before linking intr_entry -- it does not check FR_PENDING, so a
request already spliced back to fiq->pending can still be added to
fiq->interrupts. The lock contention itself produces the bad
ordering: while the resend holds fiq->lock to scan the queued
requests, the holder spins in queue_interrupt() and links intr_entry
right after the scan finishes.
The dangling entry then causes the same use-after-free that the
above commit describes: fuse_read_interrupt() writes to the freed
slab object via list_del_init() and leaks req->in.h.unique to
userspace. Once the freed memory is reused, INIT_LIST_HEAD() turns
the entry into a self-loop and list_empty(&fiq->interrupts) returns
false forever, so the daemon reads the same phantom FUSE_INTERRUPT
in an infinite loop and never consumes fiq->pending.
Close the race in fuse_remove_pending_req(), which is the common
bail-out path for both the legacy and the io_uring transport: after
the request is removed from the pending queue, also unlink intr_entry
under fiq->lock before the reference is dropped. fiq->lock must be
taken explicitly since the lock argument is the ring queue lock in
the io_uring case, while fiq->interrupts is always protected by
fiq->lock. This runs on the holder thread after any
queue_interrupt() it issued, and no other path can re-link the entry
once the request is off the queues (re-queueing an interrupt from
FUSE_INTERRUPT's -EAGAIN reply requires finding the request in the
processing queue first).
Fixes: 760eac73f9f6 ("fuse: Introduce a new notification type for resend pending requests")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.9
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun@linux.alibaba.com>
---
fs/fuse/dev.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
index 5763a7cd3b37..87891162985c 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
@@ -678,6 +678,8 @@ static int queue_interrupt(struct fuse_req *req)
bool fuse_remove_pending_req(struct fuse_req *req, spinlock_t *lock)
{
+ struct fuse_iqueue *fiq = &req->chan->iq;
+
spin_lock(lock);
if (test_bit(FR_PENDING, &req->flags)) {
/*
@@ -686,6 +688,18 @@ bool fuse_remove_pending_req(struct fuse_req *req, spinlock_t *lock)
*/
list_del(&req->list);
spin_unlock(lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Remove stale intr_entry queued by queue_interrupt() before
+ * the request was requeued, which would otherwise dangle on
+ * fiq->interrupts once the request is freed.
+ */
+ if (test_bit(FR_INTERRUPTED, &req->flags)) {
+ spin_lock(&fiq->lock);
+ list_del_init(&req->intr_entry);
+ spin_unlock(&fiq->lock);
+ }
+
__fuse_put_request(req);
req->out.h.error = -EINTR;
return true;
--
2.43.7
next reply other threads:[~2026-07-28 3:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-28 3:16 Baokun Li [this message]
2026-07-29 3:20 ` [PATCH] fuse: clear stale intr_entry in fuse_remove_pending_req() Jingbo Xu
2026-08-14 4:25 ` Tang Yizhou
2026-08-14 9:57 ` Tang Yizhou
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=20260728031641.2497811-1-libaokun@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=libaokun@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=winters.zc@antgroup.com \
/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.