Re: [PATCH] zram: unsafe zram_get_element call in zram_read_page()

[Vasily Averin <vasily.averin@linux.dev>]

On 11/7/23 13:40, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (23/11/07 16:39), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> Hmmm,
>> We may want to do more here. Basically, we probably need to re-confirm
>> after read_from_bdev() that the entry at index still has ZRAM_WB set
>> and, if so, that it points to the same blk_idx. IOW, check that it has
>> not been free-ed and re-used under us.
> --- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
> @@ -1364,14 +1364,21 @@ static int zram_read_page(struct zram *zram, struct page *page, u32 index,
>  		ret = zram_read_from_zspool(zram, page, index);
>  		zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
>  	} else {
> +		unsigned long idx = zram_get_element(zram, index);
>  		/*
>  		 * The slot should be unlocked before reading from the backing
>  		 * device.
>  		 */
>  		zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
>  
> -		ret = read_from_bdev(zram, page, zram_get_element(zram, index),
> -				     parent);
> +		ret = read_from_bdev(zram, page, idx, parent);
> +		if (ret == 0) {
> +			zram_slot_lock(zram, index);
> +			if (!zram_test_flag(zram, index, ZRAM_WB) ||
> +			    idx != zram_get_element(zram, index))
> +				ret = -EINVAL;
> +			zram_slot_unlock(zram, index);
> +		}

Why overwritten page can not be pushed to WB to the same blk_idx? 
However I'm agree that this is VERY unlikely case, and this check is better than nothing.