Re: [PATCH] bdev: fix NULL pointer dereference in sync()/close() race

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

 



On 08/29/2016 09:55 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
Hello,

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 11:30:22AM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
Don't know what's the right fix, but I posted a slightly different one
for the same crash some months ago:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8556941/


Ah, I'm sorry, I didn't see that.

Your patch is 100% identical to my first attempt at a fix and I can
confirm that it also fixes the problem for me.

If people who are more savvy in block/fs code could ack the locking bits
I think we should apply the patch ASAP because it's an easy local DOS if
you have (open/read) access to any block device.

I think the right thing to do there is doing blkdev_get() /
blkdev_put() around func() invocation in iterate_bdevs() rather than
holding bd_mutex across the callback.  Can you please verify whether
that works?

Hrmph, I tried this patch first:

    diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
    index e17bdbd..489473d 100644
    --- a/fs/block_dev.c
    +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -1884,6 +1884,7 @@ void iterate_bdevs(void (*func)(struct block_device *, void *), void *arg)
            spin_lock(&blockdev_superblock->s_inode_list_lock);
list_for_each_entry(inode, &blockdev_superblock->s_inodes, i_sb_list) {
                    struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
    +               struct block_device *bdev;

                    spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
                    if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW) ||
@@ -1905,7 +1906,11 @@ void iterate_bdevs(void (*func)(struct block_device *, void *), void *arg)
                    iput(old_inode);
                    old_inode = inode;

    -               func(I_BDEV(inode), arg);
    +               bdev = bd_acquire(inode);
    +               if (bdev) {
    +                       func(bdev, arg);
    +                       bdput(bdev);
    +               }

                    spin_lock(&blockdev_superblock->s_inode_list_lock);
            }

That didn't work at all. I guess bd_acquire() would just do a bdgrab()
and not touch ->bd_holders, whereas blkdev_get() would increment
bd_holders and therefore prevent __blkdev_put() from freeing the block
device? Too confusing...

I'll give your suggestion a try.


Vegard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux