On 3/25/21 2:48 AM, lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>
>> -----原始邮件-----
>> 发件人: michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 发送时间: 2021-03-24 00:28:35 (星期三)
>> 收件人: "Lv Yunlong" <lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 抄送: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, target-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 主题: Re: [PATCH] target: Fix a double put in transport_free_session
>>
>> On 3/22/21 9:58 PM, Lv Yunlong wrote:
>>> In transport_free_session, se_nacl is got from se_sess
>>> with the initial reference. If se_nacl->acl_sess_list is
>>> empty, se_nacl->dynamic_stop is set to true. Then the first
>>> target_put_nacl(se_nacl) will drop the initial reference
>>> and free se_nacl. Later there is a second target_put_nacl()
>>> to put se_nacl. It may cause error in race.
>>>> My patch sets se_nacl->dynamic_stop to false to avoid the
>>> double put.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lv Yunlong <lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
>>> index 5ecb9f18a53d..c266defe694f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
>>> @@ -584,8 +584,10 @@ void transport_free_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
>>> }
>>> mutex_unlock(&se_tpg->acl_node_mutex);
>>>
>>> - if (se_nacl->dynamic_stop)
>>> + if (se_nacl->dynamic_stop) {
>>> target_put_nacl(se_nacl);
>>> + se_nacl->dynamic_stop = false;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> target_put_nacl(se_nacl);
>> Could you describe the race a little more?
>>
>> Is the race:
>>
>> 1. thread1 called core_tpg_check_initiator_node_acl and found the acl.
>> sess->se_node_acl is set to the found acl.
>> 2. thread2 is running transport_free_session. It now grabs the acl_node_mutex
>> and sees se_nacl->acl_sess_list is empty.
>> 3. thread2 does the dynamic_stop=true operations in transport_free_session.
>> 4. thread1 now calls transport_register_session now adds the sess to acl's
>> acl_sess_list.
>>
>> Later when the session that thread 1 created is deleted dynamic_stop is still
>> set, so we do an extra target_put_nacl?
>>
>> I'm not sure your patch will handle this race. When we delete the session thread1
>> created dynamic_node_acl is still set, so this:
>>
>> mutex_lock(&se_tpg->acl_node_mutex);
>> if (se_nacl->dynamic_node_acl &&
>> !se_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_cache(se_tpg)) {
>> spin_lock_irqsave(&se_nacl->nacl_sess_lock, flags);
>> if (list_empty(&se_nacl->acl_sess_list))
>> se_nacl->dynamic_stop = true;
>>
>> can set dynamic_stop to true again and we can end up doing the extra put still.
>>
>> On top of the extra put we also do
>>
>> list_del(&se_nacl->acl_list);
>>
>> twice so we have to handle that as well.
>>
>> Is there also another bug in this code. If someone adds an acl while there is a
>> dynamic acl in place core_tpg_add_initiator_node_acl will clear dynamic_node_acl
>> but we leave the extra reference, so later when transport_free_session is called
>> we will not do the extra put.
>>
>
> Ok, thanks for your answer. According the description above, i think it is a false
> positive now.
>
Did you hit this bug, are you using an inspection tool, or did you find this by code
review?
I think there was a misunderstanding. I was saying it looks like a race could happen.
There is no protection in lio core.
I think it's hard to hit because most drivers do not allow the combo:
tpg_check_demo_mode == true
tpg_check_demo_mode_cache = false
It looks like those settings are allowed with tcm_qla2xxx and usb, but:
usb - has a mutex around creation and removal so we can't race.
tcm qla - I don't know this driver will enough, but I cc'd the maintainer.
