Hi Greg,
Thanks for your quick reply.
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 09:43:19PM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 09:57:50PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > From: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > [ Upstream commit 83d060ca8d90fa1e3feac227f995c013100862d3 ]
> > >
> > > Before this patch, transactions could be merged into the system
> > > transaction by function gfs2_merge_trans(), but the transaction ail
> > > lists were never merged. Because the ail flushing mechanism can run
> > > separately, bd elements can be attached to the transaction's buffer
> > > list during the transaction (trans_add_meta, etc) but quickly moved
> > > to its ail lists. Later, in function gfs2_trans_end, the transaction
> > > can be freed (by gfs2_trans_end) while it still has bd elements
> > > queued to its ail lists, which can cause it to either lose track of
> > > the bd elements altogether (memory leak) or worse, reference the bd
> > > elements after the parent transaction has been freed.
> > >
> > > Although I've not seen any serious consequences, the problem becomes
> > > apparent with the previous patch's addition of:
> > >
> > > gfs2_assert_warn(sdp, list_empty(&tr->tr_ail1_list));
> > >
> > > to function gfs2_trans_free().
> > >
> > > This patch adds logic into gfs2_merge_trans() to move the merged
> > > transaction's ail lists to the sdp transaction. This prevents the
> > > use-after-free. To do this properly, we need to hold the ail lock,
> > > so we pass sdp into the function instead of the transaction itself.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/gfs2/log.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/log.c b/fs/gfs2/log.c
> > > index d3f0612e33471..06752db213d21 100644
> > > --- a/fs/gfs2/log.c
> > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/log.c
> > > @@ -877,8 +877,10 @@ void gfs2_log_flush(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, struct gfs2_glock *gl, u32 flags)
> > > * @new: New transaction to be merged
> > > */
> > >
> > > -static void gfs2_merge_trans(struct gfs2_trans *old, struct gfs2_trans *new)
> > > +static void gfs2_merge_trans(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, struct gfs2_trans *new)
> > > {
> > > + struct gfs2_trans *old = sdp->sd_log_tr;
> > > +
> > > WARN_ON_ONCE(!test_bit(TR_ATTACHED, &old->tr_flags));
> > >
> > > old->tr_num_buf_new += new->tr_num_buf_new;
> > > @@ -890,6 +892,11 @@ static void gfs2_merge_trans(struct gfs2_trans *old, struct gfs2_trans *new)
> > >
> > > list_splice_tail_init(&new->tr_databuf, &old->tr_databuf);
> > > list_splice_tail_init(&new->tr_buf, &old->tr_buf);
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
> > > + list_splice_tail_init(&new->tr_ail1_list, &old->tr_ail1_list);
> > > + list_splice_tail_init(&new->tr_ail2_list, &old->tr_ail2_list);
> > > + spin_unlock(&sdp->sd_ail_lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void log_refund(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, struct gfs2_trans *tr)
> > > @@ -901,7 +908,7 @@ static void log_refund(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, struct gfs2_trans *tr)
> > > gfs2_log_lock(sdp);
> > >
> > > if (sdp->sd_log_tr) {
> > > - gfs2_merge_trans(sdp->sd_log_tr, tr);
> > > + gfs2_merge_trans(sdp, tr);
> > > } else if (tr->tr_num_buf_new || tr->tr_num_databuf_new) {
> > > gfs2_assert_withdraw(sdp, test_bit(TR_ALLOCED, &tr->tr_flags));
> > > sdp->sd_log_tr = tr;
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> >
> > In Debian two user confirmed issues on writing on a GFS2 partition
> > with this commit applied. The initial Debian report is at
> > https://bugs.debian.org/968567 and Daniel Craig reported it into
> > Bugzilla at https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209217 .
> >
> > Writing to a gfs2 filesystem fails and results in a soft lookup of the
> > machine for kernels with that commit applied. I cannot reporduce the
> > issue myself due not having a respective setup available, but Daniel
> > described a minimal serieos of steps to reproduce the issue.
> >
> > This might affect as well other stable series where this commit was
> > applied, as there was a similar report for someone running 5.4.58 in
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-cluster/2020-August/msg00000.html
>
> Can you report this to the gfs2 developers?
Sure! Bob Peterson and Andreas Gruenbacher were already on the
recipient list but I forgot cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx .
I can send there a separate report as followup if still needed.
Regards,
Salvatore
