Re: [PATCH] bdi: Fix another oops in wb_workfn()

Jan Kara
2018-06-19T08:41:41Z

On Mon 18-06-18 23:38:12, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/06/18 22:46, Jan Kara wrote:
> > syzbot is reporting NULL pointer dereference at wb_workfn() [1] due to
>
> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=e0818ccb7e46190b3f1038b0c794299208ed4206
>
> line is missing.
>
> > wb->bdi->dev being NULL. And Dmitry confirmed that wb->state was
> > WB_shutting_down after wb->bdi->dev became NULL. This indicates that
> > unregister_bdi() failed to call wb_shutdown() on one of wb objects.
> >
> > The problem is in cgwb_bdi_unregister() which does cgwb_kill() and thus
> > drops bdi's reference to wb structures before going through the list of
> > wbs again and calling wb_shutdown() on each of them. This way the loop
> > iterating through all wbs can easily miss a wb if that wb has already
> > passed through cgwb_remove_from_bdi_list() called from wb_shutdown()
> > from cgwb_release_workfn() and as a result fully shutdown bdi although
> > wb_workfn() for this wb structure is still running. In fact there are
> > also other ways cgwb_bdi_unregister() can race with
> > cgwb_release_workfn() leading e.g. to use-after-free issues:
> >
> > CPU1 CPU2
> > cgwb_bdi_unregister()
> > cgwb_kill(*slot);
> >
> > cgwb_release()
> > queue_work(cgwb_release_wq, &wb->release_work);
> > cgwb_release_workfn()
> > wb = list_first_entry(&bdi->wb_list, ...)
> > spin_unlock_irq(&cgwb_lock);
> > wb_shutdown(wb);
> > ...
> > kfree_rcu(wb, rcu);
> > wb_shutdown(wb); -> oops use-after-free
> >
> > We solve these issues by synchronizing writeback structure shutdown from
> > cgwb_bdi_unregister() with cgwb_release_workfn() using a new mutex. That
> > way we also no longer need synchronization using WB_shutting_down as the
> > mutex provides it for CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK case and without
> > CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK wb_shutdown() can be called only once from
> > bdi_unregister().
>
> Wow, this patch removes WB_shutting_down.

Yes.

> A bit of worry for me is how long will this mutex_lock() sleep, for
> if there are a lot of wb objects to shutdown, sequentially doing
> wb_shutdown() might block someone's mutex_lock() for longer than
> khungtaskd's timeout period (typically 120 seconds) ?

That's a good question but since the bdi is going away in this case I
don't think the flusher work should take long to complete - the device is
removed from the system at this point so it won't do any IO.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR