Re: general protection fault in find_device

[Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>]

(Sorry for the delay in replay due to my vacation).

Thanks Nikolay. more below.

On 06/18/2018 09:43 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18.06.2018 16:32, David Sterba wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:03:18AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>> So this suggests some inconsistency on fs_devices->devices list. On a
>>> quick look indeed it doesn't seem clear what the locking rules for this
>>> list are. In device_list_add in the !device case a device is added with
>>> fs_devices->device_list_Mutex held and using list_add_rcu. In the same
>>> function if we want to read the list ie invoke find_devices (because we
>>> have found an fsid) we are using plain list_for_each_entry (ie not the
>>> _rcu version and i don't see device_list_mutex being held while
>>> iterating the list). Additionally in btrfs_free_extra_devids the
>>> fs_devices->devices list is iterated with uuid_mutex being held and not
>>> device_list_mutex. In open_fs_devices we don't get any protection
>>> whatsoever while reading the list.
>>
>> The uuid_mutex or device_list_mutex is provided by a caller up the
>> stack.
>>
>>> Same thing in
>>> btrfs_find_next_active_device. If the list is supposed to be
>>> RCU-protected then the rules are:
>>>
>>> 1. There needs to be an out of band (ie not RCU) mutual exclusion of
>>> modifiers
>>
>> that's device_list_mutex for fs_devices::devices
>>
>>> 2. Iterating the list should use _rcu list primitives.
>>>
>>> Currently I don't see those 2 invariants being enforced in every code path.
>>
>> Where is it not enforced for example?
> 
> Admittedly I didn't check the whole call chain but for example in
> find_device it's used "naked". Perhaps putting some lockdep_assert in
> various places dealing with fs_devices->devices list would help ?
>>
>> If the device_list_mutex is held, list traversal does not use
>> list_for_each_entry_rcu, otherwise it does (eg the DEV_INFO ioctl or
>> btrfs_show_devname).
>>
>> The problem that triggers this report is IMO in device_list_add that
>> uses the device list unprotected. Anand sent patches for that, but they
>> were titled as 'cleanups' so I skipped them for the merge window.

  Ah. sorry to confuse you. Will consolidate fixes into github
  (also reviewing David's fixes as well) and will use syz to confirm.

Thanks, Anand

>> Candidate fixes are:
>>
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10437705/
>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10437713/
> Yep those 2 definitely look like fixing unlocked accesses to
> fs_devices->devices list


>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>