Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: Check for completion from the timeout handler

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

 



On 2024/4/17 1:13, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> If ufshcd_abort() returns SUCCESS for an already completed command then
> that command is completed twice. This results in a crash. Prevent this by
> checking whether a command has completed without completion interrupt from
> the timeout handler. This CL fixes the following kernel crash:
> 
> Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000
> Call trace:
>  dma_direct_map_sg+0x70/0x274
>  scsi_dma_map+0x84/0x124
>  ufshcd_queuecommand+0x3fc/0x880
>  scsi_queue_rq+0x7d0/0x111c
>  blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x440/0xebc
>  blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched+0x5a4/0x6b8
>  __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x150/0x220
>  __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0xf0/0x218
>  __blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue+0x8c/0x18c
>  blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x1a4/0x360
>  blk_mq_sched_insert_requests+0x130/0x334
>  blk_mq_flush_plug_list+0x138/0x234
>  blk_flush_plug_list+0x118/0x164
>  blk_finish_plug()
>  read_pages+0x38c/0x408
>  page_cache_ra_unbounded+0x230/0x2f8
>  do_sync_mmap_readahead+0x1a4/0x208
>  filemap_fault+0x27c/0x8f4
>  f2fs_filemap_fault+0x28/0xfc
>  __do_fault+0xc4/0x208
>  handle_pte_fault+0x290/0xe04
>  do_handle_mm_fault+0x52c/0x858
>  do_page_fault+0x5dc/0x798
>  do_translation_fault+0x40/0x54
>  do_mem_abort+0x60/0x134
>  el0_da+0x40/0xb8
>  el0t_64_sync_handler+0xc4/0xe4
>  el0t_64_sync+0x1b4/0x1b8
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> index c552bf391f79..c44515605031 100644
> --- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> +++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
> @@ -8880,6 +8880,25 @@ static void ufshcd_async_scan(void *data, async_cookie_t cookie)
>  static enum scsi_timeout_action ufshcd_eh_timed_out(struct scsi_cmnd *scmd)
>  {
>  	struct ufs_hba *hba = shost_priv(scmd->device->host);
> +	struct scsi_cmnd *cmd2 = scmd;
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(!scmd);
> +
> +	if (is_mcq_enabled(hba)) {
> +		struct request *rq = scsi_cmd_to_rq(scmd);
> +		struct ufs_hw_queue *hwq = ufshcd_mcq_req_to_hwq(hba, rq);
> +
> +		ufshcd_mcq_poll_cqe_lock(hba, hwq, &cmd2);
> +	} else {
> +		__ufshcd_poll(hba->host, UFSHCD_POLL_FROM_INTERRUPT_CONTEXT,
> +			      &cmd2);
> +	}
> +	if (cmd2 == NULL) {
> +		sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, scmd->device,
> +			    "%s: cmd with tag %#x has already been completed\n",
> +			    __func__, blk_mq_unique_tag(scsi_cmd_to_rq(scmd)));

Would here cause a UAF because the scsi_cmnd has already been completed?
If UAF would not happen, I think maybe scmd_printk() would be better than sdev_printk()

> +		return SCSI_EH_DONE;
> +	}
>  
>  	if (!hba->system_suspending) {
>  		/* Activate the error handler in the SCSI core. */
> 





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux