All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, bvanassche@acm.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
	Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] blk_mq: clear rq mapping in driver tags before freeing rqs in sched tags
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2021 10:45:20 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YRx0QE8T4RJONlA8@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <11ef6a06-4b6f-44d0-af79-f96e16456b55@huawei.com>

On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:02:09AM +0800, yukuai (C) wrote:
> On 2021/08/18 8:52, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:23:06AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > If ioscheduler is not none, hctx->tags->rq[tag] will point to
> > > hctx->sched_tags->static_rq[internel_tag] in blk_mq_get_driver_tag().
> > > However, static_rq of sched_tags might be freed through switching
> > > elevator or increasing nr_requests. Thus leave a window for some drivers
> > > to get the freed request through blk_mq_tag_to_rq(tags, tag).
> > 
> > I believe I have explained that it is bug of driver which has knowledge
> > if the passed tag is valid or not. We are clear that driver need to cover
> > race between normal completion and timeout/error handling.
> > 
> > > 
> > > It's difficult to fix this uaf from driver side, I'm thinking about
> > 
> > So far not see any analysis on why the uaf is triggered, care to
> > investigate the reason?
> 
> Hi, Ming
> 
> I'm sorry if I didn't explian the uaf clearly.
> 
> 1) At first, a normal io is submitted and completed with scheduler:
> 
> internel_tag = blk_mq_get_tag -> get tag from sched_tags
>  blk_mq_rq_ctx_init
>   sched_tags->rq[internel_tag] = sched_tag->static_rq[internel_tag]
> ...
> blk_mq_get_driver_tag
>  __blk_mq_get_driver_tag -> get tag from tags
>  tags->rq[tag] = sched_tag->static_rq[internel_tag]
> 
> So, both tags->rq[tag] and sched_tags->rq[internel_tag] are pointing
> to the request: sched_tags->static_rq[internal_tag].
> 
> 2) Then, if the sched_tags->static_rq is freed:
> 
> blk_mq_sched_free_requests
>  blk_mq_free_rqs(q->tag_set, hctx->sched_tags, i)
>   blk_mq_clear_rq_mapping(set, tags, hctx_idx);
>    -> sched_tags->rq[internel_tag] is set to null here

Please take a look at blk_mq_clear_rq_mapping():

	//drv_tags points to set->tags[] which is shared in host wide
	struct blk_mq_tags *drv_tags = set->tags[hctx_idx];
	...

	//tags points to sched_tags
	list_for_each_entry(page, &tags->page_list, lru) {
		unsigned long start = (unsigned long)page_address(page);
		unsigned long end = start + order_to_size(page->private);
		int i;

		/* clear drv_tags->rq[i] in case it is from this sched tags*/
		for (i = 0; i < set->queue_depth; i++) {
			struct request *rq = drv_tags->rqs[i];
			unsigned long rq_addr = (unsigned long)rq;

			if (rq_addr >= start && rq_addr < end) {
				WARN_ON_ONCE(refcount_read(&rq->ref) != 0);
				cmpxchg(&drv_tags->rqs[i], rq, NULL);
			}
		}
	}

So we do clear tags->rq[] instead of sched_tag->rq[].

> 
> After switching elevator, tags->rq[tag] still point to the request
> that is just freed.

No.

> 
> 3) nbd server send a reply with random tag directly:
> 
> recv_work
>  nbd_read_stat
>   blk_mq_tag_to_rq(tags, tag)
>    rq = tags->rq[tag] -> rq is freed
> 
> Usually, nbd will get tag and send a request to server first, and then
> handle the reply. However, if the request is skipped, such uaf problem
> can be triggered.

When or how is such reply with random tag replied to nbd client? Is it
possible for nbd client to detect such un-expected/bad situation?
What if blk_mq_tag_to_rq() is just called before/when we clear tags->rq[]?

> 
> > 
> > The request reference has been cleared too in blk_mq_tag_update_depth():
> > 
> > 	blk_mq_tag_update_depth
> > 		blk_mq_free_rqs
> > 			blk_mq_clear_rq_mapping
> > 
> 
> What I'm trying to do is to clear rq mapping in both
> hctx->sched_tags->rq and hctx->tags->rq when sched_tags->static_rq
> is freed. However, I forgot about the case when tags is shared in
> multiple device. Thus what this patch does is clearly wrong...
> 
> So, what do you think about adding a new interface to iterate the
> request in tags->rq[], find what is pointing to the
> sched_tags->static_rq[], and use cmpxchg() to clear them?

See above, we already clear tags->rq[] if the rq is from to-be-freed
sched_tags.


Thanks,
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-18  2:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-17  2:23 [PATCH RFC] blk_mq: clear rq mapping in driver tags before freeing rqs in sched tags Yu Kuai
2021-08-18  0:52 ` Ming Lei
2021-08-18  2:02   ` yukuai (C)
2021-08-18  2:45     ` Ming Lei [this message]
2021-08-18  3:13       ` yukuai (C)

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=YRx0QE8T4RJONlA8@T590 \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yukuai3@huawei.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.