Re: [PATCH] nfsd: validate the nfsd_serv pointer before calling svc_wake_up

Jeff Layton
2025-01-27T14:34:22Z

On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 09:03 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> On 1/27/25 8:39 AM, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > On 1/27/25 8:32 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 08:22 -0500, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > > On 1/27/25 8:07 AM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 11:15 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2025, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 2025-01-27 at 08:53 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2025, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 2025-01-26 at 13:39 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2025, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed can be called from the filecache
> > > > > > > > > > > laundrette, which is shut down after the nfsd threads are shut
> > > > > > > > > > > down and
> > > > > > > > > > > the nfsd_serv pointer is cleared. If nn->nfsd_serv is NULL
> > > > > > > > > > > then there
> > > > > > > > > > > are no threads to wake.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ensure that the nn->nfsd_serv pointer is non-NULL before calling
> > > > > > > > > > > svc_wake_up in nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed. This is safe
> > > > > > > > > > > since the
> > > > > > > > > > > svc_serv is not freed until after the filecache laundrette is
> > > > > > > > > > > cancelled.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: ffb402596147 ("nfsd: Don't leave work of closing files
> > > > > > > > > > > to a work queue")
> > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-
> > > > > > > > > > > nfs/7d9f2a8aede4f7ca9935a47e1d405643220d7946.camel@kernel.org/
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > This is only lightly tested, but I think it will fix the bug that
> > > > > > > > > > > Salvatore reported.
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >    fs/nfsd/filecache.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > > > > > > > > > >    1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index
> > > > > > > > > > > e91c164b5ea21507659904690533a19ca43b1b64..fb2a4469b7a3c077de2dd750f43239b4af6d37b0 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -445,11 +445,20 @@ nfsd_file_dispose_list_delayed(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > list_head *dispose)
> > > > > > > > > > >                            struct nfsd_file, nf_gc);
> > > > > > > > > > >            struct nfsd_net *nn = net_generic(nf->nf_net,
> > > > > > > > > > > nfsd_net_id);
> > > > > > > > > > >            struct nfsd_fcache_disposal *l = nn->fcache_disposal;
> > > > > > > > > > > +        struct svc_serv *serv;
> > > > > > > > > > >            spin_lock(&l->lock);
> > > > > > > > > > >            list_move_tail(&nf->nf_gc, &l->freeme);
> > > > > > > > > > >            spin_unlock(&l->lock);
> > > > > > > > > > > -        svc_wake_up(nn->nfsd_serv);
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +        /*
> > > > > > > > > > > +         * The filecache laundrette is shut down after the
> > > > > > > > > > > +         * nn->nfsd_serv pointer is cleared, but before the
> > > > > > > > > > > +         * svc_serv is freed.
> > > > > > > > > > > +         */
> > > > > > > > > > > +        serv = nn->nfsd_serv;
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wonder if this should be READ_ONCE() to tell the compiler
> > > > > > > > > > that we
> > > > > > > > > > could race with clearing nn->nfsd_serv.  Would the comment
> > > > > > > > > > still be
> > > > > > > > > > needed?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think we need a comment at least. The linkage between the
> > > > > > > > > laundrette
> > > > > > > > > and the nfsd_serv being set to NULL is very subtle. A READ_ONCE()
> > > > > > > > > doesn't convey that well, and is unnecessary here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do you say "is unnecessary here" ?
> > > > > > > > If the code were
> > > > > > > >      if (nn->nfsd_serv)
> > > > > > > >               svc_wake_up(nn->nfsd_serv);
> > > > > > > > that would be wrong as nn->nfds_serv could be set to NULL between
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > two.
> > > > > > > > And the C compile is allowed to load the value twice because the
> > > > > > > > C memory
> > > > > > > > model declares that would have the same effect.
> > > > > > > > While I doubt it would actually change how the code is compiled,
> > > > > > > > I think
> > > > > > > > we should have READ_ONCE() here (and I've been wrong before about
> > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > the compiler will actually do).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's unnecessary because the outcome of either case is acceptable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When racing with shutdown, either it's NULL and the laundrette won't
> > > > > > > call svc_wake_up(), or it's non-NULL and it will. In the non-NULL
> > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > the call to svc_wake_up() will be a no-op because the threads are
> > > > > > > shut
> > > > > > > down.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The vastly common case in this code is that this pointer will be non-
> > > > > > > NULL, because the server is running (i.e. not racing with
> > > > > > > shutdown). I
> > > > > > > don't see the need in making all of those accesses volatile.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of us is confused.  I hope it isn't me.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It's probably me. I think you have a much better understanding of
> > > > > compiler design than I do. Still...
> > > > >
> > > > > > The hypothetical problem I see is that the C compiler could generate
> > > > > > code to load the value "nn->nfsd_serv" twice.  The first time it is
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > NULL, the second time it is NULL.
> > > > > > The first is used for the test, the second is passed to svc_wake_up().
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unlikely though this is, it is possible and READ_ONCE() is designed
> > > > > > precisely to prevent this.
> > > > > > To quote from include/asm-generic/rwonce.h it will
> > > > > >    "Prevent the compiler from merging or refetching reads"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A "volatile" access does not add any cost (in this case).  What it
> > > > > > does
> > > > > > is break any aliasing that the compile might have deduced.
> > > > > > Even if the compiler thinks it has "nn->nfsd_serv" in a register, it
> > > > > > won't think it has the result of READ_ONCE(nn->nfsd_serv) in that
> > > > > > register.
> > > > > > And if it needs the result of a previous READ_ONCE(nn->nfsd_serv) it
> > > > > > won't decide that it can just read nn->nfsd_serv again.  It MUST keep
> > > > > > the result of READ_ONCE(nn->nfsd_serv) somewhere until it is not
> > > > > > needed
> > > > > > any more.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm mainly just considering the resulting pointer. There are two
> > > > > possible outcomes to the fetch of nn->nfsd_serv. Either it's a valid
> > > > > pointer that points to the svc_serv, or it's NULL. The resulting code
> > > > > can handle either case, so it doesn't seem like adding READ_ONCE() will
> > > > > create any material difference here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe I should ask it this way: What bad outcome could result if we
> > > > > don't add READ_ONCE() here?
> > > >
> > > > Neil just described it. The compiler would generate two load operations,
> > > > one for the test and one for the function call argument. The first load
> > > > can retrieve a non-NULL address, and the second a NULL address.
> > > >
> > > > I agree a READ_ONCE() is necessary.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Now I'm confused:
> > >
> > >                  struct svc_serv *serv;
> > >
> > >         [...]
> > >
> > >                  /*
> > >                   * The filecache laundrette is shut down after the
> > >                   * nn->nfsd_serv pointer is cleared, but before the
> > >                   * svc_serv is freed.
> > >                   */
> > >                  serv = nn->nfsd_serv;
> > >                  if (serv)
> > >                          svc_wake_up(serv);
> > >
> > > This code is explicitly asking to fetch nn->nfsd_serv into the serv
> > > variable, and then is testing that copy of the pointer and passing it
> > > into svc_wake_up().
> > >
> > > How is the compiler allowed to suddenly refetch a NULL pointer into
> > > serv after testing that serv is non-NULL?
> >
> > There's nothing here that tells the compiler it is not allowed to
> > optimize this into two separate fetches if it feels that is better
> > code. READ_ONCE is what tells the compiler we do not want that re-
> > organization /ever/.
> >
> >
>
> Well, I think you can argue that even if the compiler does split this
> code into two reads of nn->nfsd_serv, it is guaranteed that the read
> value is always the same both times -- I guess that's that the comment
> is arguing, yes?
>

Exactly. That's why I didn't just do:

if (nn->nfsd_serv)
svc_destroy(nn->nfsd_serv);

We just have to ensure that we don't pass a NULL pointer to
svc_destroy() and that should be guaranteed by fetching it into an
interim variable.

A READ_ONCE() doesn't buy us anything extra in this situation. It
ensures that it doesn't use a cached version of nn->nfsd_serv when it
does the fetch, but using a cached version is harmless here. Either way
will still work.

Plus, if this had access to a cached version of that variable in a
register, it avoided a memory fetch. Given that this should almost
never be NULL, adding READ_ONCE() seems like a waste.

> I just wonder what will happen if that guarantee should happen to change
> in the future.

I think the only way this could break would be if nfsd_destroy_serv()
started calling svc_destroy(&serv) before canceling the laundrette wq
job. Maybe it's worth a comment in there pointing out that dependency.

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>