Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30808b0b-367a-266a-7ef4-de69c08e1319@internode.on.net>
 <09396dca-3643-9a4b-070a-e7db2a07235e@internode.on.net> <CAHk-=wjj8SQx4YzS8yw7ZJJKiVLBY0g=d8rCSyPCM=8Pzmz+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wjj8SQx4YzS8yw7ZJJKiVLBY0g=d8rCSyPCM=8Pzmz+Zg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 8 Dec 2019 21:18:51 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH2r5mvAv651DcX0--8oRYR8BXmBr8F=ymeBVDXm5YoQfcnK2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: refcount_t: underflow; use-after-free with CIFS umount after
 scsi-misc commit ef2cc88e2a205b8a11a19e78db63a70d3728cdf5
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Arthur Marsh <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net>,
        SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        CIFS <linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org>,
        "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@linux.ibm.com>,
        ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 8:23 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 8, 2019 at 5:49 PM Arthur Marsh
> <arthur.marsh@internode.on.net> wrote:
> >
> > This still happens with 5.5.0-rc1:
>
> Does it happen 100% of the time?

I can reproduce it (although it was a little more difficult since WiFi doesn't
work on RC1 on some of my hardware - due to the 802.11 driver regression oops.
I was able to reproduce it to Samba localhost).


> Your bisection result looks pretty nonsensical - not that it's
> impossible (anything is possible), but it really doesn't look very
> likely. Which makes me think maybe it's slightly timing-sensitive or
> something?

The bisection result is implausible.  I just did some experiments and
it looks far more likely is that it is related to commit
72e73c78c446e ("cifs: close the shared root handle on tree disconnect")
so added Ronnie to the cc.  That patch added a call (at unmount time)
to close_shroot.
The idea of that patch made sense - although tree disconnect (and then
logoff of the session)
will indirectly free any open handles on the server for that session,
it is a little
cleaner to close the cached root SMB3 file handle explicitly.

void close_shroot(struct cached_fid *cfid)
{
        mutex_lock(&cfid->fid_mutex);
        kref_put(&cfid->refcount, smb2_close_cached_fid);
        mutex_unlock(&cfid->fid_mutex);
}


Taking out the one line change in the patch from last week that calls
close_shroot from
umount (SMB2_tdis, ie tree_disconnect) I don't see the problem so far
more likely
that it is related to that commit.   The problem seems to be related
to servers which
don't support directory leases.  Will spin up a patch to fix this if
Ronnie hasn't already fixed it