On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 10:14:52AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 08:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:55:52AM -0800, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 10:43 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > So from CPU1's review, cmd->cmnd is in a remote NUMA node, > > > > __scsi_format_command() is executed much slower than > > > > mempool_free(). > > > > So when mempool_free() returns, __scsi_format_command() may not > > > > fetched the buffer in L1 cache yet, then use-after-free > > > > is still triggered. > > > > > > > > That is why I say this use-after-free is inevitable no matter > > > > 'setting SCpnt->cmnd to NULL before calling mempool_free()' or > > > > not. > > > > > > The bottom line is that there are several creative ways around this > > > but the proposed code is currently broken and simply putting a > > > comment in saying so doesn't make it acceptable. > > > > As I explained above, I didn't see one really workable way. Or please > > correct it if I am wrong. > > I simply can't believe it's beyond the wit of man to solve a use after > free race. About 40% of kernel techniques are devoted to this. All I > really care about is not losing the PI information we previously had. > I agree with Bart that NULL cmnd is a good indicator, so it seems > reasonable to use it. If you have another mechanism, feel free to > propose it. Hi James, This patch is my proposal, no others thought of yet. We can fix the use-after-free easily via lock, rcu and ..., but some cost has to pay. In this case, we can't wait too long in show_rq(), otherwise we may lose important debug info, so I do not have better way. IMO this use-after-free is actually no harm, I don't think we have to fix it, but it should be better to not let utility warn on this case. Thanks, Ming
