From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Hou Tao <houtao1@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] block: fix use-after-free on cached last_lookup partition
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:47:07 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200221074707.GA2156@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5eb26a32-d2b2-e2c3-52e2-591cf626a1ff@acm.org>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 08:03:52PM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2020-01-08 22:21, Ming Lei wrote:
> > delete_partition() clears the cached last_lookup partition. However
> > the .last_lookup cache may be overwritten by one IO path after
> > it is cleared from delete_partition(). Then another IO path may
> > use the cached deleting partition after __delete_partition() is
> > called, then use-after-free is triggered on the cached partition.
> >
> > Fixes the issue by the following approach:
> >
> > 1) always get the partition's refcount via hd_struct_try_get() before
> > setting .last_lookup
> >
> > 2) move clearing .last_lookup from delete_partition() to
> > __delete_partition() which is release handle of the partition's
> > percpu-refcount, so that no IO path can overwrite .last_lookup after it
> > is cleared in __delete_partition().
> >
> > It is one candidate approach of Yufen's patch[1] which adds overhead
> > in fast path by indirect lookup which may introduce one extra cacheline
> > in IO path. Also this patch relies on percpu-refcount's protection, and
> > it is easier to understand and verify.
> >
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20200109013551.GB9655@ming.t460p/T/#t
>
> Hi Ming,
>
> disk_map_sector_rcu() is called from the I/O path only and hence with
> q->q_usage_counter > 0. Has it been considered to freeze disk->queue
> from delete_partition() before deleting a partition and unfreezing
> disk->queue after partition deletion has finished? Would that approach
> allow to eliminate partition reference counting and thereby improve the
> performance of the hot path?
Hi Bart,
I did consider that approach, but this way may cause performance
regression, given deleting any partition drops IO performance a lot
on other un-related partitions.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-21 8:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-09 6:21 [PATCH 0/4] block: fix partition use-after-free and optimization Ming Lei
2020-01-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: fix use-after-free on cached last_lookup partition Ming Lei
2020-02-21 3:05 ` Yufen Yu
2020-02-21 4:03 ` Bart Van Assche
2020-02-21 7:47 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-01-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: only define 'nr_sects_seq' in hd_part for 32bit SMP Ming Lei
2020-01-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 3/4] block: re-organize fields of 'struct hd_part' Ming Lei
2020-01-09 6:21 ` [PATCH 4/4] block: don't hold part0's refcount in IO path Ming Lei
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2020-05-07 8:52 [PATCH 0/4] block: fix partition use-after-free and optimization Ming Lei
2020-05-07 8:52 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: fix use-after-free on cached last_lookup partition Ming Lei
2020-05-07 14:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-05-08 1:54 ` Ming Lei
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=20200221074707.GA2156@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuyufen@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).