From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CA2D285C8B; Thu, 7 May 2026 23:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778197139; cv=none; b=OZY103UOykMbcViGgAP5Ku8XTQAzEgMJ1YaflKadrZR89Zdh8e+0zgveuHUHcLO42+QVO6FUOjkoQ+VkSxpQ5CBjkctS/CqFJb9W7sL6aB93RzXtEj7r8Rh+aIjKT/9xqvreeDcMlOnWy6wI8T8fKlGtvF1RbgjFtilGMGO8Vv8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1778197139; c=relaxed/simple; bh=t/0r+a5SS9vq5VHgMQzgBaeM4k6BgPKTI7KxhCYwGEg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ENHxDrz7zP/yHzp2FFlxyItWql2yVXWkF5ZdIu5FwLQDCwuFRZ72ERY6N4QlJxlsrpJgg3bQNhCnmALySqddms4BkYgkEuwu/eQXS891ietH6qstYNtmzZFSueiUsXEQ4M4SLpq5xoZd/z/SncBJJQLDH4md+wtLrPWOJQuZgm8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=ZNOUwtp1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ZNOUwtp1" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 89A2EC2BCB2; Thu, 7 May 2026 23:38:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1778197138; bh=t/0r+a5SS9vq5VHgMQzgBaeM4k6BgPKTI7KxhCYwGEg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZNOUwtp1CjdLv0dW22CWiHYQ8nzOLCE6vt/a9MS25dy/y1WSPCMXIoi/kvfeoUPPU Dgl7GXzQOwQieo6+ohEcZ3RxtHQr+j4Ar36EkXKUSfcJFcsFBxkaT46GUZegGh4sg+ ep4LhqQWAWcasyUp7RuO5UaFLv8X87KbT2InaXuw+IcBONk1CSqwksKZ4sj7YHDARd 246mYPy4ts9uMyBdCY5JOdsa4mXshLsJuRxl8G2R6FJscgxsorwqXIH+2eIV+aw4B5 E2ekS9/cA0mK4MVIa5iA0++dyCVMdmxxem+oEcL1U/8skkkqexmEEOPNM17pSU/8S7 FoSzfUm7Kb/3Q== Date: Thu, 7 May 2026 16:38:57 -0700 From: Minchan Kim To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: Richard Chang , Jens Axboe , Andrew Morton , bgeffon@google.com, liumartin@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: fix use-after-free in zram_writeback_endio Message-ID: References: <20260504123230.3833765-1-richardycc@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 03:56:52PM -0700, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Thu, May 07, 2026 at 06:40:37PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > On (26/05/05 09:37), Minchan Kim wrote: > > > > @@ -966,9 +966,8 @@ static void zram_writeback_endio(struct bio *bio) > > > > > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > > > list_add(&req->entry, &wb_ctl->done_reqs); > > > > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > > > - > > > > wake_up(&wb_ctl->done_wait); > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > I agree this will fix the issue, but using a lock to extend the lifetime of > > > an object to avoid a UAF is not a good pattern. Object lifetime shared between > > > process and interrupt contexts should be managed explicitly using refcount. > > > > ->num_inflight is a ref-counter, basically. The problem is that > > completion is a two-step process, only one part of each is synchronized > > with the writeback context. I honestly don't want to have two ref-counts: > > one for requests pending zram completion and one for active endio contexts. > > Maybe we can repurpose num_inflight instead. > > If it can make the code much clearer and simpler, I have no objection. > > > > > > Furthermore, keeping wake_up() outside the critical section minimizes > > > interrupt-disabled latency > > > > So I considered that, but isn't endio already called from IRQ context? > > Just asking. We wakeup only one waiter (writeback task), so it's not > > that bad CPU-cycles wise. Do you think it's really a concern? > > I don't think it will have any measurable impact; I was just pointing out > a theoretical one. > > > > > wake_up() under spin-lock solves the problem of a unsynchronized > > two-stages endio process. > > > > > and avoids nesting spinlocks (done_lock -> done_wait.lock), reducing > > > the risk of future lockdep issues, just in case. > > > > I considered lockdep as well but ruled it out as impossible scenario, > > nesting here is strictly uni-directional, we never call into zram from > > the scheduler. Just saying. > > Sure. I just prefer to avoid adding more lock dependencies without a strong > justification, to prevent potential locking issues in the future. > > > > > > It definitely will add more overhead for the submission/completion paths to deal > > > with the refcount, but I think we should go that way at the cost of runtime. > > > > Dunno, something like below maybe? > > > > --- > > drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c | 14 ++++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > index ce2e1c79fc75..27fe50d666d7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c > > @@ -967,7 +967,7 @@ static int zram_writeback_complete(struct zram *zram, struct zram_wb_req *req) > > static void zram_writeback_endio(struct bio *bio) > > { > > struct zram_wb_req *req = container_of(bio, struct zram_wb_req, bio); > > - struct zram_wb_ctl *wb_ctl = bio->bi_private; > > + struct zram_wb_ctl *wb_ctl = READ_ONCE(bio->bi_private); > > unsigned long flags; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > @@ -975,6 +975,7 @@ static void zram_writeback_endio(struct bio *bio) > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > > > wake_up(&wb_ctl->done_wait); > > + atomic_dec(&wb_ctl->num_inflight); > > } > > > > static void zram_submit_wb_request(struct zram *zram, > > @@ -998,7 +999,7 @@ static int zram_complete_done_reqs(struct zram *zram, > > unsigned long flags; > > int ret = 0, err; > > > > - while (atomic_read(&wb_ctl->num_inflight) > 0) { > > + for (;;) { > > spin_lock_irqsave(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > req = list_first_entry_or_null(&wb_ctl->done_reqs, > > struct zram_wb_req, entry); > > @@ -1006,7 +1007,6 @@ static int zram_complete_done_reqs(struct zram *zram, > > list_del(&req->entry); > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); > > > > - /* ->num_inflight > 0 doesn't mean we have done requests */ > > if (!req) > > break; > > > > @@ -1014,7 +1014,6 @@ static int zram_complete_done_reqs(struct zram *zram, > > if (err) > > ret = err; > > > > - atomic_dec(&wb_ctl->num_inflight); > > release_pp_slot(zram, req->pps); > > req->pps = NULL; > > > > @@ -1129,8 +1128,11 @@ static int zram_writeback_slots(struct zram *zram, > > if (req) > > release_wb_req(req); > > > > - while (atomic_read(&wb_ctl->num_inflight) > 0) { > > - wait_event(wb_ctl->done_wait, !list_empty(&wb_ctl->done_reqs)); > > + while (atomic_read(&wb_ctl->num_inflight) || > > + !list_empty(&wb_ctl->done_reqs)) { > > + wait_event_timeout(wb_ctl->done_wait, > > + !list_empty(&wb_ctl->done_reqs), > > + HZ); > > err = zram_complete_done_reqs(zram, wb_ctl); > > if (err) > > ret = err; > > I understand why you used a timeout here, but I still don't think it's a good > idea since the user could wait for up to a second unnecessarily during the > race. > > What I prefer is simple and explicit lifetime management for wb_ctl using > refcount. It directly addresses the core issue (UAF of wb_ctl) in a standard, > robust way without needing workarounds like timeouts. The runtime overhead > of kref will be negligible. > The other standard way to deal with lifetime is RCU. How about this? diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c index a324ede6206d..28ab4a24e77f 100644 --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ #include #include #include +#include #include "zram_drv.h" @@ -504,6 +505,7 @@ struct zram_wb_ctl { wait_queue_head_t done_wait; spinlock_t done_lock; atomic_t num_inflight; + struct rcu_head rcu; }; struct zram_wb_req { @@ -829,14 +831,8 @@ static void release_wb_req(struct zram_wb_req *req) kfree(req); } static void release_wb_ctl(struct zram_wb_ctl *wb_ctl) { - if (!wb_ctl) - return; - /* We should never have inflight requests at this point */ WARN_ON(atomic_read(&wb_ctl->num_inflight)); WARN_ON(!list_empty(&wb_ctl->done_reqs)); @@ -850,7 +849,7 @@ static void release_wb_ctl(struct zram_wb_ctl *wb_ctl) release_wb_req(req); } - kfree(wb_ctl); + kfree_rcu(wb_ctl, rcu); } static struct zram_wb_ctl *init_wb_ctl(struct zram *zram) @@ -985,6 +997,7 @@ static void zram_writeback_endio(struct bio *bio) struct zram_wb_ctl *wb_ctl = bio->bi_private; unsigned long flags; + rcu_read_lock(); spin_lock_irqsave(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); list_add(&req->entry, &wb_ctl->done_reqs); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wb_ctl->done_lock, flags); @@ -991,5 +1004,6 @@ static void zram_writeback_endio(struct bio *bio) wake_up(&wb_ctl->done_wait); + rcu_read_unlock(); } static void zram_submit_wb_request(struct zram *zram, @@ -1276,8 +1290,8 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev, wb_ctl = init_wb_ctl(zram); if (!wb_ctl) { - ret = -ENOMEM; - goto out; + release_pp_ctl(zram, pp_ctl); + return -ENOMEM; } args = skip_spaces(buf);