On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 17:38 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2025-02-10 at 20:36 +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 02:12:35PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > From: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 14:06:40 -0500
> > > Subject: [PATCH] fuse: drop extra put of folio when using pipe splice
> > >
> > > In 3eab9d7bc2f4 ("fuse: convert readahead to use folios"), I converted
> > > us to using the new folio readahead code, which drops the reference on
> > > the folio once it is locked, using an inferred reference on the folio.
> > > Previously we held a reference on the folio for the entire duration of
> > > the readpages call.
> > >
> > > This is fine, however I failed to catch the case for splice pipe
> > > responses where we will remove the old folio and splice in the new
> > > folio. Here we assumed that there is a reference held on the folio for
> > > ap->folios, which is no longer the case.
> > >
> > > To fix this, simply drop the extra put to keep us consistent with the
> > > non-splice variation. This will fix the UAF bug that was reported.
> > >
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/2f681f48-00f5-4e09-8431-2b3dbfaa881e@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > Fixes: 3eab9d7bc2f4 ("fuse: convert readahead to use folios")
> > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/fuse/dev.c | 2 --
> > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > > index 5b5f789b37eb..5bd6e2e184c0 100644
> > > --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > > +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
> > > @@ -918,8 +918,6 @@ static int fuse_try_move_page(struct fuse_copy_state *cs, struct page **pagep)
> > > }
> > >
> > > folio_unlock(oldfolio);
> > > - /* Drop ref for ap->pages[] array */
> > > - folio_put(oldfolio);
> > > cs->len = 0;
> >
> > But aren't we now leaking a reference to newfolio? ie shouldn't
> > we also:
> >
> > - folio_get(newfolio);
> >
> > a few lines earlier?
> >
>
>
> I think that ref was leaking without Josef's patch, but your proposed
> fix seems correct to me. There is:
>
> - 1 reference stolen from the pipe_buffer
> - 1 reference taken for the pagecache in replace_page_cache_folio()
> - the folio_get(newfolio) just after that
>
> The pagecache ref doesn't count here, and we only need the reference
> that was stolen from the pipe_buffer to replace the one in pagep.
Actually, no. I'm wrong here. A little after the folio_get(newfolio)
call, we do:
/*
* Release while we have extra ref on stolen page. Otherwise
* anon_pipe_buf_release() might think the page can be reused.
*/
pipe_buf_release(cs->pipe, buf);
...so that accounts for the extra reference. I think the newfolio
refcounting is correct as-is.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
