From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>
To: Nguyen Ngoc Thang <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
syzbot+feeb9b5352b9ff89618a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: annotate lockless task ioprio accesses
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:59:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8eeb6b8-70c0-4629-b140-34e283678c37@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261018071636.79198-1-ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
On 2026/10/18 9:16, Nguyen Ngoc Thang wrote:
> __get_task_ioprio() reads task->io_context and ioc->ioprio without
> task_lock() when called on current, e.g. from init_sync_kiocb() on every
> write. set_task_ioprio() can update both for another task at any time,
> including the first publication of a new io_context. KCSAN reports it:
>
> BUG: KCSAN: data-race in __kernel_write_iter / set_task_ioprio
> value changed: 0x0000000000000000 -> 0xffff888109813730
>
> A stale or torn value is harmless, a task simply gets the old or new
> priority, but the compiler may tear or refetch the accesses and the
> io_context fields must be visible before the pointer is.
>
> Publish the pointer with smp_store_release(), read it with READ_ONCE()
> (address dependency orders the ioprio load), and mark the ioprio
> accesses.
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+feeb9b5352b9ff89618a@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=feeb9b5352b9ff89618a
> Signed-off-by: Nguyen Ngoc Thang <ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com>
> ---
> Tested with a KCSAN kernel in QEMU. syzbot's coredump repro is too slow to hit
> the window, so a thread loops pwrite() on a tmpfs file while the main thread
> does the first ioprio_set() on its tid (~35k iterations per run). Same pair,
> same "0 -> pointer" value change: 26 reports per run before, 0 in two runs
> after. No Fixes: tag, the history I have is grafted.
> block/blk-ioc.c | 5 +++--
> include/linux/ioprio.h | 5 +++--
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-ioc.c b/block/blk-ioc.c
> index d15918d7fabb..12ddc672f41d 100644
> --- a/block/blk-ioc.c
> +++ b/block/blk-ioc.c
> @@ -277,9 +277,10 @@ int set_task_ioprio(struct task_struct *task, int ioprio)
> if (task->io_context)
> kmem_cache_free(iocontext_cachep, ioc);
> else
> - task->io_context = ioc;
> + /* Pairs with READ_ONCE() in __get_task_ioprio() */
> + smp_store_release(&task->io_context, ioc);
> }
> - task->io_context->ioprio = ioprio;
> + WRITE_ONCE(task->io_context->ioprio, ioprio);
> out:
> task_unlock(task);
> return 0;
> diff --git a/include/linux/ioprio.h b/include/linux/ioprio.h
> index 5210e8371238..56371e9ea306 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ioprio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ioprio.h
> @@ -56,7 +56,8 @@ static inline int task_nice_ioclass(struct task_struct *task)
> */
> static inline int __get_task_ioprio(struct task_struct *p)
> {
> - struct io_context *ioc = p->io_context;
> + /* Paired with smp_store_release() in set_task_ioprio() */
> + struct io_context *ioc = READ_ONCE(p->io_context);
How does this help with the ioc dereference below? By the time we access
ioc->ioprio without task_lock() held, ioc could have been freed already, no?
So it feels like this should be using rcu.
> int prio;
>
> if (!ioc)
> @@ -66,7 +67,7 @@ static inline int __get_task_ioprio(struct task_struct *p)
> if (p != current)
> lockdep_assert_held(&p->alloc_lock);
>
> - prio = ioc->ioprio;
> + prio = READ_ONCE(ioc->ioprio);
> if (IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(prio) == IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE)
> prio = IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE(task_nice_ioclass(p),
> task_nice_ioprio(p));
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-19 11:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-18 7:16 [PATCH] block: annotate lockless task ioprio accesses Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-19 11:59 ` Damien Le Moal [this message]
2026-10-19 12:18 ` Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-19 12:28 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-10-19 12:58 ` [PATCH v2] " Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-19 15:47 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-10-20 12:52 ` [PATCH v3] " Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-22 7:34 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-10-23 11:56 ` Nguyen Ngoc Thang
2026-10-23 11:56 ` [PATCH v4] block: use READ_ONCE() to access the task io_context ioprio Nguyen Ngoc Thang
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=d8eeb6b8-70c0-4629-b140-34e283678c37@kernel.org \
--to=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ngocthang2710.1999@gmail.com \
--cc=syzbot+feeb9b5352b9ff89618a@syzkaller.appspotmail.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.