From: Alex Elder <alex.elder@linaro.org>
To: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] rbd: fix use-after free of rbd_dev->disk
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 07:41:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5225D915.3080509@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1377824228-14632-1-git-send-email-josh.durgin@inktank.com>
On 08/29/2013 07:57 PM, Josh Durgin wrote:
> Removing a device deallocates the disk, unschedules the watch, and
> finally cleans up the rbd_dev structure. rbd_dev_refresh(), called
> from the watch callback, updates the disk size and rbd_dev
> structure. With no locking between them, rbd_dev_refresh() may use the
> device or rbd_dev after they've been freed.
>
> To fix this, add a shutting_down flag and a mutex protecting it to rbd_dev.
> Take the mutex and check whether the flag is set before using rbd_dev->disk.
> Move this disk-updating to a separate function as well.
>
> Fixes: http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/5636
> Signed-off-by: Josh Durgin <josh.durgin@inktank.com>
A few comments below. I don't think you need the shutting_down
flag after all. If you disagree, say so. Either way though,
this looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org>
> ---
> drivers/block/rbd.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> index fef3687..8ab3362b 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> @@ -343,6 +343,9 @@ struct rbd_device {
> struct ceph_osd_event *watch_event;
> struct rbd_obj_request *watch_request;
>
> + bool shutting_down; /* rbd_remove() in progress */
You could use a new rbd_dev_flags value for this.
In fact, now that I'm looking at this, I think the REMOVING flag
is already sufficient to indicate that bit of state. (Sorry I
didn't see this before.)
You would still want the mutex so the shutdown won't happen until
an underway size update completed. (Or you could add another
UPDATING_SIZE flag, but I think the mutex is better in this case.)
> + struct mutex shutdown_lock; /* protects shutting_down */
> +
> struct rbd_spec *parent_spec;
> u64 parent_overlap;
> atomic_t parent_ref;
> @@ -3324,6 +3327,24 @@ static void rbd_exists_validate(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
> clear_bit(RBD_DEV_FLAG_EXISTS, &rbd_dev->flags);
> }
>
> +static void rbd_dev_update_size(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
> +{
> + sector_t size;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&rbd_dev->shutdown_lock);
> + /*
> + * If the device is being removed, rbd_dev->disk has
> + * been destroyed, so don't try to update its size
> + */
> + if (!rbd_dev->shutting_down) {
> + size = (sector_t)rbd_dev->mapping.size / SECTOR_SIZE;
> + dout("setting size to %llu sectors", (unsigned long long)size);
> + set_capacity(rbd_dev->disk, size);
Is it true you don't hit that locking problem because of the new mutex?
> + revalidate_disk(rbd_dev->disk);
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&rbd_dev->shutdown_lock);
> +}
> +
> static int rbd_dev_refresh(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
> {
> u64 mapping_size;
> @@ -3343,12 +3364,7 @@ static int rbd_dev_refresh(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
> up_write(&rbd_dev->header_rwsem);
>
> if (mapping_size != rbd_dev->mapping.size) {
> - sector_t size;
> -
> - size = (sector_t)rbd_dev->mapping.size / SECTOR_SIZE;
> - dout("setting size to %llu sectors", (unsigned long long)size);
> - set_capacity(rbd_dev->disk, size);
> - revalidate_disk(rbd_dev->disk);
> + rbd_dev_update_size(rbd_dev);
> }
>
> return ret;
> @@ -3656,6 +3672,8 @@ static struct rbd_device *rbd_dev_create(struct rbd_client *rbdc,
> atomic_set(&rbd_dev->parent_ref, 0);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&rbd_dev->node);
> init_rwsem(&rbd_dev->header_rwsem);
> + mutex_init(&rbd_dev->shutdown_lock);
> + rbd_dev->shutting_down = false;
>
> rbd_dev->spec = spec;
> rbd_dev->rbd_client = rbdc;
> @@ -5159,7 +5177,16 @@ static ssize_t rbd_remove(struct bus_type *bus,
> if (ret < 0 || already)
> return ret;
>
> + /*
> + * hold shutdown_lock while destroying the device so that
> + * device destruction will not race with device updates from
> + * the watch callback
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&rbd_dev->shutdown_lock);
> + rbd_dev->shutting_down = true;
> rbd_bus_del_dev(rbd_dev);
> + mutex_unlock(&rbd_dev->shutdown_lock);
> +
> ret = rbd_dev_header_watch_sync(rbd_dev, false);
> if (ret)
> rbd_warn(rbd_dev, "failed to cancel watch event (%d)\n", ret);
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-03 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-29 6:24 [PATCH 0/3] shutdown race and debug fix Josh Durgin
2013-08-29 6:24 ` [PATCH 1/3] rbd: fix null dereference in dout Josh Durgin
2013-08-29 14:26 ` Alex Elder
2013-08-29 14:46 ` Sage Weil
2013-08-29 6:24 ` [PATCH 2/3] libceph: add function to ensure notifies are complete Josh Durgin
2013-08-29 14:46 ` Sage Weil
2013-08-29 15:21 ` Alex Elder
2013-08-29 6:24 ` [PATCH 3/3] rbd: close remove vs. notify race leading to use-after-free Josh Durgin
2013-08-29 14:46 ` Sage Weil
2013-08-29 18:36 ` Josh Durgin
2013-08-29 15:21 ` Alex Elder
2013-08-29 18:33 ` Josh Durgin
2013-08-30 0:57 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rbd: fix use-after free of rbd_dev->disk Josh Durgin
2013-09-03 12:41 ` Alex Elder [this message]
2013-09-09 7:30 ` Josh Durgin
2013-08-30 0:57 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rbd: complete notifies before cleaning up osd_client and rbd_dev Josh Durgin
2013-09-03 12:45 ` Alex Elder
2013-08-30 0:57 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rbd: make rbd_obj_notify_ack() synchronous Josh Durgin
2013-09-03 13:05 ` Alex Elder
2013-09-03 13:07 ` Alex Elder
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=5225D915.3080509@linaro.org \
--to=alex.elder@linaro.org \
--cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=josh.durgin@inktank.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox