On 5/17/22 7:00 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Jens Axboe wrote:
>
>> On 5/17/22 6:36 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/17/22 6:24 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 May 2022, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/17/22 5:41 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>>>>>> Good afternoon Jens, Pavel, et al.,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure if you are presently aware, but there appears to be a
>>>>>>> use-after-free issue affecting the io_uring worker driver (fs/io-wq.c)
>>>>>>> in Stable v5.10.y.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The full sysbot report can be seen below [0].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The C-reproducer has been placed below that [1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had great success running this reproducer in an infinite loop.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My colleague reverse-bisected the fixing commit to:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> commit fb3a1f6c745ccd896afadf6e2d6f073e871d38ba
>>>>>>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Date: Fri Feb 26 09:47:20 2021 -0700
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> io-wq: have manager wait for all workers to exit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Instead of having to wait separately on workers and manager, just have
>>>>>>> the manager wait on the workers. We use an atomic_t for the reference
>>>>>>> here, as we need to start at 0 and allow increment from that. Since the
>>>>>>> number of workers is naturally capped by the allowed nr of processes,
>>>>>>> and that uses an int, there is no risk of overflow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fs/io-wq.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this fix it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit 886d0137f104a440d9dfa1d16efc1db06c9a2c02
>>>>>> Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Date: Fri Mar 5 12:59:30 2021 -0700
>>>>>>
>>>>>> io-wq: fix race in freeing 'wq' and worker access
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looks like it didn't make it into 5.10-stable, but we can certainly
>>>>>> rectify that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your quick response Jens.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch doesn't apply cleanly to v5.10.y.
>>>>
>>>> This is probably why it never made it into 5.10-stable :-/
>>>
>>> Right. It doesn't apply at all unfortunately.
>>>
>>>>> I'll have a go at back-porting it. Please bear with me.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you into issues with that and I can help out.
>>>
>>> I think the dependency list is too big.
>>>
>>> Too much has changed that was never back-ported.
>>>
>>> Actually the list of patches pertaining to fs/io-wq.c alone isn't so
>>> bad, I did start to back-port them all but some of the big ones have
>>> fs/io_uring.c changes incorporated and that list is huge (256 patches
>>> from v5.10 to the fixing patch mentioned above).
>>
>> The problem is that 5.12 went to the new worker setup, and this patch
>> landed after that even though it also applies to the pre-native workers.
>> Hence the dependency chain isn't really as long as it seems, probably
>> just a few patches backporting the change references and completions.
>>
>> I'll take a look this afternoon.
>
> Thanks Jens. I really appreciate it.
Can you see if this helps? Untested...
diff --git a/fs/io-wq.c b/fs/io-wq.c
index 3d5fc76b92d0..35af489bcaf6 100644
--- a/fs/io-wq.c
+++ b/fs/io-wq.c
@@ -125,6 +125,9 @@ struct io_wq {
refcount_t refs;
struct completion done;
+ atomic_t worker_refs;
+ struct completion worker_done;
+
struct hlist_node cpuhp_node;
refcount_t use_refs;
@@ -250,8 +253,8 @@ static void io_worker_exit(struct io_worker *worker)
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wqe->lock);
kfree_rcu(worker, rcu);
- if (refcount_dec_and_test(&wqe->wq->refs))
- complete(&wqe->wq->done);
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&wqe->wq->worker_refs))
+ complete(&wqe->wq->worker_done);
}
static inline bool io_wqe_run_queue(struct io_wqe *wqe)
@@ -695,9 +698,13 @@ static bool create_io_worker(struct io_wq *wq, struct io_wqe *wqe, int index)
worker->wqe = wqe;
spin_lock_init(&worker->lock);
+ atomic_inc(&wq->worker_refs);
+
worker->task = kthread_create_on_node(io_wqe_worker, worker, wqe->node,
"io_wqe_worker-%d/%d", index, wqe->node);
if (IS_ERR(worker->task)) {
+ if (atomic_dec_and_test(&wq->worker_refs))
+ complete(&wq->worker_done);
kfree(worker);
return false;
}
@@ -717,7 +724,6 @@ static bool create_io_worker(struct io_wq *wq, struct io_wqe *wqe, int index)
if (index == IO_WQ_ACCT_UNBOUND)
atomic_inc(&wq->user->processes);
- refcount_inc(&wq->refs);
wake_up_process(worker->task);
return true;
}
@@ -822,17 +828,18 @@ static int io_wq_manager(void *data)
task_work_run();
out:
- if (refcount_dec_and_test(&wq->refs)) {
- complete(&wq->done);
- return 0;
- }
/* if ERROR is set and we get here, we have workers to wake */
- if (test_bit(IO_WQ_BIT_ERROR, &wq->state)) {
- rcu_read_lock();
- for_each_node(node)
- io_wq_for_each_worker(wq->wqes[node], io_wq_worker_wake, NULL);
- rcu_read_unlock();
- }
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ for_each_node(node)
+ io_wq_for_each_worker(wq->wqes[node], io_wq_worker_wake, NULL);
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+
+ if (atomic_read(&wq->worker_refs))
+ wait_for_completion(&wq->worker_done);
+
+ if (refcount_dec_and_test(&wq->refs))
+ complete(&wq->done);
+
return 0;
}
@@ -1135,6 +1142,9 @@ struct io_wq *io_wq_create(unsigned bounded, struct io_wq_data *data)
init_completion(&wq->done);
+ init_completion(&wq->worker_done);
+ atomic_set(&wq->worker_refs, 0);
+
wq->manager = kthread_create(io_wq_manager, wq, "io_wq_manager");
if (!IS_ERR(wq->manager)) {
wake_up_process(wq->manager);
@@ -1179,11 +1189,6 @@ static void __io_wq_destroy(struct io_wq *wq)
if (wq->manager)
kthread_stop(wq->manager);
- rcu_read_lock();
- for_each_node(node)
- io_wq_for_each_worker(wq->wqes[node], io_wq_worker_wake, NULL);
- rcu_read_unlock();
-
wait_for_completion(&wq->done);
for_each_node(node)
--
Jens Axboe
