From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
To: "linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@mellanox.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@mellanox.com>
Subject: [PATCH] RDMA/uverbs: Remove needs_kfree_rcu from uverbs_obj_type_class
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:33:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200113143306.GA28717@ziepe.ca> (raw)
After device disassociation the uapi_objects are destroyed and freed,
however it is still possible that core code can be holding a kref on the
uobject. When it finally goes to uverbs_uobject_free() via the kref_put()
it can trigger a use-after-free on the uapi_object.
Since needs_kfree_rcu is a micro optimization that only benefits file
uobjects, just get rid of it. There is no harm in using kfree_rcu even if
it isn't required, and the number of involved objects is small.
Signed-off-by: Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@mellanox.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
---
drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c | 23 +----------------------
include/rdma/uverbs_types.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 23 deletions(-)
This should go before the 'refactoring fd usage' series as more
testing has shown the reworked code can trivially trigger this
existing bug.
diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
index 6c72773faf2911..17bdbe38fdfa59 100644
--- a/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
+++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/rdma_core.c
@@ -49,13 +49,7 @@ void uverbs_uobject_get(struct ib_uobject *uobject)
static void uverbs_uobject_free(struct kref *ref)
{
- struct ib_uobject *uobj =
- container_of(ref, struct ib_uobject, ref);
-
- if (uobj->uapi_object->type_class->needs_kfree_rcu)
- kfree_rcu(uobj, rcu);
- else
- kfree(uobj);
+ kfree_rcu(container_of(ref, struct ib_uobject, ref), rcu);
}
void uverbs_uobject_put(struct ib_uobject *uobject)
@@ -744,20 +738,6 @@ const struct uverbs_obj_type_class uverbs_idr_class = {
.lookup_put = lookup_put_idr_uobject,
.destroy_hw = destroy_hw_idr_uobject,
.remove_handle = remove_handle_idr_uobject,
- /*
- * When we destroy an object, we first just lock it for WRITE and
- * actually DESTROY it in the finalize stage. So, the problematic
- * scenario is when we just started the finalize stage of the
- * destruction (nothing was executed yet). Now, the other thread
- * fetched the object for READ access, but it didn't lock it yet.
- * The DESTROY thread continues and starts destroying the object.
- * When the other thread continue - without the RCU, it would
- * access freed memory. However, the rcu_read_lock delays the free
- * until the rcu_read_lock of the READ operation quits. Since the
- * exclusive lock of the object is still taken by the DESTROY flow, the
- * READ operation will get -EBUSY and it'll just bail out.
- */
- .needs_kfree_rcu = true,
};
EXPORT_SYMBOL(uverbs_idr_class);
@@ -920,7 +900,6 @@ const struct uverbs_obj_type_class uverbs_fd_class = {
.lookup_put = lookup_put_fd_uobject,
.destroy_hw = destroy_hw_fd_uobject,
.remove_handle = remove_handle_fd_uobject,
- .needs_kfree_rcu = false,
};
EXPORT_SYMBOL(uverbs_fd_class);
diff --git a/include/rdma/uverbs_types.h b/include/rdma/uverbs_types.h
index d57a5ba00c743e..0b0f5a5f392de7 100644
--- a/include/rdma/uverbs_types.h
+++ b/include/rdma/uverbs_types.h
@@ -98,7 +98,6 @@ struct uverbs_obj_type_class {
enum rdma_remove_reason why,
struct uverbs_attr_bundle *attrs);
void (*remove_handle)(struct ib_uobject *uobj);
- u8 needs_kfree_rcu;
};
struct uverbs_obj_type {
--
2.24.1
next reply other threads:[~2020-01-13 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-13 14:33 Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2020-01-13 20:37 ` [PATCH] RDMA/uverbs: Remove needs_kfree_rcu from uverbs_obj_type_class Jason Gunthorpe
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=20200113143306.GA28717@ziepe.ca \
--to=jgg@mellanox.com \
--cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelgur@mellanox.com \
--cc=yishaih@mellanox.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