Re: [PATCH -next v2 3/3] blk-cgroup: synchronize pd_free_fn() from blkg_free_workfn() and blkcg_deactivate_policy()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

在 2023/01/19 1:05, Tejun Heo 写道:
Hello,

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:31:52PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>

Currently parent pd can be freed before child pd:

t1: remove cgroup C1
blkcg_destroy_blkgs
  blkg_destroy
   list_del_init(&blkg->q_node)
   // remove blkg from queue list
   percpu_ref_kill(&blkg->refcnt)
    blkg_release
     call_rcu

t2: from t1
__blkg_release
  blkg_free
   schedule_work
			t4: deactivate policy
			blkcg_deactivate_policy
			 pd_free_fn
			 // parent of C1 is freed first
t3: from t2
  blkg_free_workfn
   pd_free_fn

If policy(for example, ioc_timer_fn() from iocost) access parent pd from
child pd after pd_offline_fn(), then UAF can be triggered.

Fix the problem by delaying 'list_del_init(&blkg->q_node)' from
blkg_destroy() to blkg_free_workfn(), and use a new disk level mutex to
                                             ^
                                             using

protect blkg_free_workfn() and blkcg_deactivate_policy).
   ^                                                     ^
   synchronize?                                          ()

@@ -118,16 +118,26 @@ static void blkg_free_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
  {
  	struct blkcg_gq *blkg = container_of(work, struct blkcg_gq,
  					     free_work);
+	struct request_queue *q = blkg->q;
  	int i;
+ if (q)
+		mutex_lock(&q->blkcg_mutex);

A comment explaining what the above is synchronizing would be useful.

+
  	for (i = 0; i < BLKCG_MAX_POLS; i++)
  		if (blkg->pd[i])
  			blkcg_policy[i]->pd_free_fn(blkg->pd[i]);
if (blkg->parent)
  		blkg_put(blkg->parent);
-	if (blkg->q)
-		blk_put_queue(blkg->q);
+
+	if (q) {
+		if (!list_empty(&blkg->q_node))

We can drop the above if.

+			list_del_init(&blkg->q_node);
+		mutex_unlock(&q->blkcg_mutex);
+		blk_put_queue(q);
+	}
+
  	free_percpu(blkg->iostat_cpu);
  	percpu_ref_exit(&blkg->refcnt);
  	kfree(blkg);
@@ -462,9 +472,14 @@ static void blkg_destroy(struct blkcg_gq *blkg)
  	lockdep_assert_held(&blkg->q->queue_lock);
  	lockdep_assert_held(&blkcg->lock);
- /* Something wrong if we are trying to remove same group twice */
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&blkg->q_node));
-	WARN_ON_ONCE(hlist_unhashed(&blkg->blkcg_node));
+	/*
+	 * blkg is removed from queue list in blkg_free_workfn(), hence this
+	 * function can be called from blkcg_destroy_blkgs() first, and then
+	 * before blkg_free_workfn(), this function can be called again in
+	 * blkg_destroy_all().

How about?

	 * blkg stays on the queue list until blkg_free_workfn(), hence this
	 * function can be called from blkcg_destroy_blkgs() first and again
	 * from blkg_destroy_all() before blkg_free_workfn().

+	 */
+	if (hlist_unhashed(&blkg->blkcg_node))
+		return;
for (i = 0; i < BLKCG_MAX_POLS; i++) {
  		struct blkcg_policy *pol = blkcg_policy[i];
@@ -478,8 +493,11 @@ static void blkg_destroy(struct blkcg_gq *blkg)
blkg->online = false; + /*
+	 * Delay deleting list blkg->q_node to blkg_free_workfn() to synchronize
+	 * pd_free_fn() from blkg_free_workfn() and blkcg_deactivate_policy().
+	 */

So, it'd be better to add a more comprehensive comment in blkg_free_workfn()
explaining why we need this synchronization and how it works and then point
to it from here.

Other than comments, it looks great to me. Thanks a lot for your patience
and seeing it through.
Thanks for the suggestions, I'll send a new patch based on your
suggestions.

Kuai





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux