Re: [syzbot] [rcu?] [bcachefs?] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference in rcu_core (3)

[Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2025 at 08:28:56PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 6/8/25 20:23, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 08, 2025 at 11:26:28AM -0400, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> >> 
> >> I don't think it's that - syzbot's .config already has that enabled.
> >> KASAN, too.
> >> 
> >> And the only place we do call_rcu() is from rcu_pending.c, where we've
> >> got a rearming rcu callback - but we track whether it's outstanding, and
> >> we do all relevant operations with a lock held.
> >> 
> >> And we only use rcu_pending.c with SRCU, not regular RCU.
> >> 
> >> We do use kfree_rcu() in a few places (all boring, I expect), but that
> >> doesn't (generally?) use the rcu callback list.
> >>
> > Right, kvfree_rcu() does not intersect with regular callbacks, it has
> > its own path. 
> 
> You mean do to the batching? Maybe the batching should be disabled with
> CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD=y if it prevents it from detecting issues?
> Otherwise we now have kvfree_rcu_cb() so the special handling of
> kvfree_rcu() is gone in in the non-batching case.
> 
Not really. I meant that in a call_rcu() API there is no any check if
a passed callback which is executed after GP is NULL. If so, we get the
bug about about dereferencing of NULL pointer.

Since it is invoked by the rcu_core() context, we can not identify the
caller in order to blame someone :)

As for batching, we have a support of CONFIG_DEBUG_OBJECTS_RCU_HEAD. It
helps to identify double-freeing and probably leaking.

> > It looks like the problem is here:
> > 
> > <snip>
> >   f = rhp->func;
> >   debug_rcu_head_callback(rhp);
> >   WRITE_ONCE(rhp->func, (rcu_callback_t)0L);
> >   f(rhp);
> > <snip>
> > 
> > we do not check if callback, "f", is a NULL. If it is, the kernel bug
> > is triggered right away. For example:
> > 
> > call_rcu(&rh, NULL);
> > 
> > @Paul, do you think it makes sense to narrow callers which apparently
> > pass NULL as a callback? To me it seems the case of this bug. But we
> > do not know the source.
> > 
> > It would give at least a stack-trace of caller which passes a NULL.
> 
> Right, AFAIU this kind of check is now possible, previously NULL was being
> interpreted as a valid __is_kvfree_rcu_offset() (i.e. rcu_head at offset 0).
> 
> > --
> > Uladzislau Rezki
> > 
>