From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] loop: Fix NULL pointer dereference by synchronizing lo_release and loop_queue_rq
Date: Mon, 18 May 2026 17:40:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260518174013.4b72dd50a5bcb89daaed1f62@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b2032d6-3f36-4d2b-8128-985c08a4fa37@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
On Fri, 15 May 2026 10:38:36 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> wrote:
> The loop driver relies on lo_release() to automatically clear the loop
> device via __loop_clr_fd() when the last file descriptor is closed
> (LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR). Although the backing file structure itself remains
> allocated in memory thanks to proper file reference counting (f_count is
> not zero), a severe race condition exists regarding the visibility of
> the lo->lo_backing_file pointer.
>
> This race window was exposed by commit 65565ca5f99b ("block: unify
> the synchronous bi_end_io callbacks"). By unifying and optimizing
> the synchronous I/O completion path, the timing and scheduling behavior of
> the block layer altered significantly.
> As a result, a highly-concurrent execution pipeline emerged where
> lo_release() can progress to __loop_clr_fd() and nullify
> lo->lo_backing_file while an already-scheduled asynchronous I/O work
> (lo_rw_aio) is just about to be executed by a kworker thread.
>
> Since the kworker enters lo_rw_aio() after lo->lo_backing_file has been
> cleared, it attempts to dereference the now-NULL pointer when initializing
> the kiocb, leading to the reported NULL pointer dereference bug.
>
> To close this race safely without introducing heavy fast-path checks,
> we must ensure that any running or scheduled dispatch threads have
> completed before we nullify the pointer. Since loop_queue_rq() operates
> within the block layer's RCU read-side critical section, invoke
> synchronize_rcu() and drain_workqueue() in __loop_clr_fd() prior to
> clearing lo->lo_backing_file.
AI review asked a couple of questions:
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/9b2032d6-3f36-4d2b-8128-985c08a4fa37@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-19 0:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-18 0:02 [syzbot] [block?] general protection fault in lo_rw_aio syzbot
2026-04-21 11:05 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-11 11:43 ` [PATCH] loop: Fix NULL pointer dereference by synchronizing lo_release and loop_queue_rq Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-11 15:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2026-05-11 17:43 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-12 11:46 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-15 1:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-19 0:40 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2026-05-19 9:27 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-20 3:06 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-20 6:36 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-20 7:49 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-20 8:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-20 8:54 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-25 3:40 ` [PATCH v3] loop: Fix NULL pointer dereference in lo_rw_aio() Tetsuo Handa
2026-05-25 15:19 ` Ming Lei
2026-05-26 0:25 ` Tetsuo Handa
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=20260518174013.4b72dd50a5bcb89daaed1f62@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp \
/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