From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] fix potential access after free: return value of blk_check_plugged() must be used schedule() safe
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 08:49:46 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <877fgbpt6d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160405133657.GA3078@soda.linbit>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7176 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 05 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> blk_check_plugged() will return a pointer
> to an object linked on current->plug->cb_list.
>
> That list may "at any time" be implicitly cleared by
> blk_flush_plug_list()
> flush_plug_callbacks()
> either as a result of blk_finish_plug(),
> or implicitly by schedule() [and maybe other implicit mechanisms?]
I think the only risk here is preemption, so
preempt_disable() / preempt_enable()
or as you say a spinlock, is sufficient protection.
I would suggest preempt_{dis,en}able for the raid5 code.
Maybe for raid1/raid10 too just for consistency.
>
> If there is no protection against an implicit unplug
> between the call to blk_check_plug() and using its return value,
> that implicit unplug may have already happened,
> even before the plug is actually initialized or populated,
> and we may be using a pointer to already free()d data.
>
> I suggest that both raid1 and raid10 can easily be fixed
> by moving the call to blk_check_plugged() inside the spinlock.
>
> For md/raid5 and btrfs/raid56,
> I'm unsure how (if) this needs to be fixed.
>
> The other current in-tree users of blk_check_plugged()
> are mm_check_plugged(), and mddev_check_plugged().
>
> mm_check_plugged() is already used safely inside a spinlock.
>
> with mddev_check_plugged() I'm unsure, at least on a preempt kernel.
I think this is only an issue on a preempt kernel, and in that case: yes
- mddev_check_plugged() needs protection. Maybe preempt enable/disable
could be done in blk_check_plugged() so those calls which don't
dereference the pointer don't need further protection.
Or maybe blk_check_plugged should have WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_atomic());
>
> Did I overlook any magic that protects against such implicit unplug?
Just the fortunate lack of preemption probably.
>
> Also, why pretend that a custom plug struct (such as raid1_plug_cb)
> may have its member "struct blk_plug_cb cb" at an arbitrary offset?
> As it is, raid1_check_plugged() below is actually just a cast.
Fair point. I generally prefer container_of to casts because it is more
obviously correct, and type checked.
However as blk_check_plugged performs the allocation, the blk_plug_cb
must be at the start of the containing structure, so the complex tests
for handling NULL are just noise.
I'd be happy for that to be changed.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid1.c | 19 +++++++++++++------
> drivers/md/raid10.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 5 +++++
> fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 5 +++++
> 4 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid1.c b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> index 39fb21e..55dc960 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid1.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid1.c
> @@ -1044,6 +1044,18 @@ static void raid1_unplug(struct blk_plug_cb *cb, bool from_schedule)
> kfree(plug);
> }
>
> +static struct raid1_plug_cb *raid1_check_plugged(struct mddev *mddev)
> +{
> + /* return (struct raid1_plug_cb*)blk_check_plugged(...); */
> + struct blk_plug_cb *cb;
> + struct raid1_plug_cb *plug = NULL;
> +
> + cb = blk_check_plugged(raid1_unplug, mddev, sizeof(*plug));
> + if (cb)
> + plug = container_of(cb, struct raid1_plug_cb, cb);
> + return plug;
> +}
> +
> static void raid1_make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * bio)
> {
> struct r1conf *conf = mddev->private;
> @@ -1060,7 +1072,6 @@ static void raid1_make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * bio)
> & (REQ_DISCARD | REQ_SECURE));
> const unsigned long do_same = (bio->bi_rw & REQ_WRITE_SAME);
> struct md_rdev *blocked_rdev;
> - struct blk_plug_cb *cb;
> struct raid1_plug_cb *plug = NULL;
> int first_clone;
> int sectors_handled;
> @@ -1382,12 +1393,8 @@ read_again:
>
> atomic_inc(&r1_bio->remaining);
>
> - cb = blk_check_plugged(raid1_unplug, mddev, sizeof(*plug));
> - if (cb)
> - plug = container_of(cb, struct raid1_plug_cb, cb);
> - else
> - plug = NULL;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> + plug = raid1_check_plugged(mddev);
> if (plug) {
> bio_list_add(&plug->pending, mbio);
> plug->pending_cnt++;
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index e3fd725..d7d4397 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -1052,6 +1052,18 @@ static void raid10_unplug(struct blk_plug_cb *cb, bool from_schedule)
> kfree(plug);
> }
>
> +static struct raid10_plug_cb *raid10_check_plugged(struct mddev *mddev)
> +{
> + /* return (struct raid1_plug_cb*)blk_check_plugged(...); */
> + struct blk_plug_cb *cb;
> + struct raid10_plug_cb *plug = NULL;
> +
> + cb = blk_check_plugged(raid10_unplug, mddev, sizeof(*plug));
> + if (cb)
> + plug = container_of(cb, struct raid10_plug_cb, cb);
> + return plug;
> +}
> +
> static void __make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
> {
> struct r10conf *conf = mddev->private;
> @@ -1066,7 +1078,6 @@ static void __make_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
> const unsigned long do_same = (bio->bi_rw & REQ_WRITE_SAME);
> unsigned long flags;
> struct md_rdev *blocked_rdev;
> - struct blk_plug_cb *cb;
> struct raid10_plug_cb *plug = NULL;
> int sectors_handled;
> int max_sectors;
> @@ -1369,14 +1380,8 @@ retry_write:
>
> atomic_inc(&r10_bio->remaining);
>
> - cb = blk_check_plugged(raid10_unplug, mddev,
> - sizeof(*plug));
> - if (cb)
> - plug = container_of(cb, struct raid10_plug_cb,
> - cb);
> - else
> - plug = NULL;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> + plug = raid10_check_plugged(mddev);
> if (plug) {
> bio_list_add(&plug->pending, mbio);
> plug->pending_cnt++;
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 8ab8b65..4e3b02b 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -5034,6 +5034,11 @@ static void release_stripe_plug(struct mddev *mddev,
> }
>
> cb = container_of(blk_cb, struct raid5_plug_cb, cb);
> +/* FIXME
> + * Nothing protects current from being scheduled, which means cb, aka plug,
> + * may implicitly be "unplugged" any time now, before it even is initialized,
> + * and will then be a pointer to free()d space.
> + */
>
> if (cb->list.next == NULL) {
> int i;
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> index 0b7792e..17757d4 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> @@ -1774,6 +1774,11 @@ int raid56_parity_write(struct btrfs_root *root, struct bio *bio,
> cb = blk_check_plugged(btrfs_raid_unplug, root->fs_info,
> sizeof(*plug));
> if (cb) {
> +/* FIXME
> + * Nothing protects current from being scheduled, which means cb, aka plug,
> + * may implicitly be "unplugged" any time now, before it even is initialized,
> + * and will then be a pointer to free()d space.
> + */
> plug = container_of(cb, struct btrfs_plug_cb, cb);
> if (!plug->info) {
> plug->info = root->fs_info;
> --
> 1.9.1
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 818 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 22:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-05 13:36 [PATCH] [RFC] fix potential access after free: return value of blk_check_plugged() must be used schedule() safe Lars Ellenberg
2016-04-05 22:49 ` NeilBrown [this message]
2016-04-06 0:30 ` Chris Mason
2016-04-06 0:49 ` Shaohua Li
2016-04-06 3:10 ` NeilBrown
2016-04-06 12:01 ` Lars Ellenberg
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=877fgbpt6d.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=lars.ellenberg@linbit.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
/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).