On 2/11/25 20:23, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 6:01 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> I think we do need to remove the folio_get(newfolio); here or we are
> leaking the reference.
>
> new_folio = page_folio(buf->page) # ref is 1
> replace_page_cache_folio() # ref is 2
> folio_get() # ref is 3
> pipe_buf_release() # ref is 2
>
> One ref belongs to the page cache and will get dropped by that, but
> the other ref is unaccounted for (since the original patch removed
> "folio_put()" from fuse_readpages_end()).
>
> I still think acquiring an explicit reference on the folio before we
> add it to ap->folio and then dropping it when we're completely done
> with it in fuse_readpages_end() is the best solution, as that imo
> makes the refcounting / lifetimes the most explicit / clear. For
> example, in try_move_pages(), if we get rid of that "folio_get()"
> call, the page cache is the holder of the remaining reference on it,
> and we rely on the earlier "folio_clear_uptodate(newfolio);" line in
> try_move_pages() to guarantee that the newfolio isn't freed out from
> under us if memory gets tight and it's evicted from the page cache.
>
> imo, a patch like this makes the refcounting the most clear:
>
> From 923fa98b97cf6dfba3bb486833179c349d566d64 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 10:59:40 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] fuse: acquire explicit folio refcount for readahead
>
> In 3eab9d7bc2f4 ("fuse: convert readahead to use folios"), the logic
> was converted 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 for the case for splice pipe responses where we
> will remove the old folio and splice in the new folio (see
> fuse_try_move_page()), we assume that there is a reference held on the
> folio for ap->folios, which is no longer the case.
>
> To fix this and make the refcounting explicit, acquire a refcount on the
> folio before we add it to ap->folios[] and drop it when we are done with
> the folio in fuse_readpages_end(). 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")
Can we add some tags?
Reported-by: Christian Heusel <christian@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/2f681f48-00f5-4e09-8431-2b3dbfaa881e@xxxxxxxxx/
Closes: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/linux/-/issues/110
Reported-by: Mantas Mikulėnas <grawity@xxxxxxxxx>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/34feb867-09e2-46e4-aa31-d9660a806d1a@xxxxxxxxx/
Closes: https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1236660
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> index 7d92a5479998..6fa535c73d93 100644
> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -955,8 +955,10 @@ static void fuse_readpages_end(struct fuse_mount
> *fm, struct fuse_args *args,
> fuse_invalidate_atime(inode);
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < ap->num_folios; i++)
> + for (i = 0; i < ap->num_folios; i++) {
> folio_end_read(ap->folios[i], !err);
> + folio_put(ap->folios[i]);
> + }
> if (ia->ff)
> fuse_file_put(ia->ff, false);
>
> @@ -1049,6 +1051,12 @@ static void fuse_readahead(struct readahead_control *rac)
>
> while (ap->num_folios < cur_pages) {
> folio = readahead_folio(rac);
> + /*
> + * Acquire an explicit reference on the folio in case
> + * it's replaced in the page cache in the splice case
> + * (see fuse_try_move_page()).
> + */
> + folio_get(folio);
It would be more efficient to use __readahead_folio() instead of doing a folio_get()
to counter a folio_put() in readahead_folio(). An adjusted comment can explain why
we use __readahead_folio().
> ap->folios[ap->num_folios] = folio;
> ap->descs[ap->num_folios].length = folio_size(folio);
> ap->num_folios++;
> --
> 2.43.5
>
>> --
>> Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
