public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Question about nfs4_destroy_session()
@ 2014-02-12 21:42 Paul E. McKenney
  2014-02-12 21:55 ` Trond Myklebust
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-02-12 21:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: trond.myklebust; +Cc: linux-nfs, linux-kernel

Hello, Trond,

In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.

So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code?  (If so,
no bug -- but a comment might be good.)

							Thanx, Paul

void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
{
	struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
	struct rpc_cred *cred;

	cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
	nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
	if (cred)
		put_rpccred(cred);

	rcu_read_lock();
	xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
	rcu_read_unlock();
	dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
		__func__, xprt);
	xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
	nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
	kfree(session);
}


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Question about nfs4_destroy_session()
  2014-02-12 21:42 Question about nfs4_destroy_session() Paul E. McKenney
@ 2014-02-12 21:55 ` Trond Myklebust
  2014-02-12 22:07   ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2014-02-12 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: paulmck; +Cc: linuxnfs, Linux Kernel Mailing List


On Feb 12, 2014, at 16:42, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello, Trond,
> 
> In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
> leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
> If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
> bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.
> 
> So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code?  (If so,
> no bug -- but a comment might be good.)
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
> {
> 	struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
> 	struct rpc_cred *cred;
> 
> 	cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
> 	nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
> 	if (cred)
> 		put_rpccred(cred);
> 
> 	rcu_read_lock();
> 	xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
> 	rcu_read_unlock();
> 	dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
> 		__func__, xprt);
> 	xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
> 	nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
> 	kfree(session);
> }
> 

Hi Paul,

nfs4_destroy_session() is only called when we’re tearing down the struct nfs_client that owns the cl_rppcclient, and the associated cl_xprt, so the code above should be safe, despite being ugly.

Is there a better annotation for use in the above kind of situation?

Cheers,
  Trond

_________________________________
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
trond.myklebust@primarydata.com


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Question about nfs4_destroy_session()
  2014-02-12 21:55 ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2014-02-12 22:07   ` Paul E. McKenney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul E. McKenney @ 2014-02-12 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Trond Myklebust; +Cc: linuxnfs, Linux Kernel Mailing List

On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:55:02PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 16:42, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hello, Trond,
> > 
> > In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
> > leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
> > If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
> > bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.
> > 
> > So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code?  (If so,
> > no bug -- but a comment might be good.)
> > 
> > 							Thanx, Paul
> > 
> > void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
> > {
> > 	struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
> > 	struct rpc_cred *cred;
> > 
> > 	cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
> > 	nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
> > 	if (cred)
> > 		put_rpccred(cred);
> > 
> > 	rcu_read_lock();
> > 	xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
> > 	rcu_read_unlock();
> > 	dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
> > 		__func__, xprt);
> > 	xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
> > 	nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
> > 	kfree(session);
> > }
> > 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> nfs4_destroy_session() is only called when we’re tearing down the struct nfs_client that owns the cl_rppcclient, and the associated cl_xprt, so the code above should be safe, despite being ugly.
> 
> Is there a better annotation for use in the above kind of situation?

One approach would be to add a comment on the rcu_dereference() stating
that creation-side code is excluded, e.g., via locking or by the data
structures no longer being accessible.  Another approach would be to
move the rcu_read_unlock() to follow the xprt_destroy_backchannel(),
assuming none of the code that would be pulled into the RCU read-side
critical section can block.

The second approach would prevent false positives from the RCU pointer
leak detectors that are being worked on.

							Thanx, Paul


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-12 22:08 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-02-12 21:42 Question about nfs4_destroy_session() Paul E. McKenney
2014-02-12 21:55 ` Trond Myklebust
2014-02-12 22:07   ` Paul E. McKenney

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox