Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2022 16:16:39 +0100
From:   Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-block v2] bdi, blk-cgroup: Fix potential UAF of blkcg
Message-ID: <20221130151639.GE27838@blackbody.suse.cz>
References: <20221129203400.1456100-1-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="T6xhMxlHU34Bk0ad"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221129203400.1456100-1-longman@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk


--T6xhMxlHU34Bk0ad
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 03:34:00PM -0500, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com> =
wrote:
> The reproducing system can no longer produce a warning with this patch.
> All the runnable block/0* tests including block/027 were run successfully
> without failure.

Thanks for the test!

> @@ -1088,7 +1088,15 @@ static void blkcg_destroy_blkgs(struct blkcg *blkc=
g)
> =20
>  	might_sleep();
> =20
> -	css_get(&blkcg->css);
> +	/*
> +	 * blkcg_destroy_blkgs() shouldn't be called with all the blkcg
> +	 * references gone and rcu_read_lock not held.
> +	 */
> +	if (!css_tryget(&blkcg->css)) {
> +		WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
> +		return;
> +	}

As I followed the previous discussion, the principle is that obtaining a
reference or being inside an RCU read section is sufficient.

Consequently, I'd expect the two situations handled equally but here the
no-ref but RCU bails out. (Which is OK because blkg_list must be empty?)

However, the might_sleep() in (non-sleepable) RCU reader section combo
makes me wary anyway (not with the early return but tools would likely
complain).

All in all, can't the contract of blkcg_destroy_blkgs() declare that
a caller must pass blkcg with a valid reference? (The body of
blkcg_destroy_blkgs then wouldn't need to get neither put the inner
reference).

HTH,
Michal

--T6xhMxlHU34Bk0ad
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEARYIAB0WIQTrXXag4J0QvXXBmkMkDQmsBEOquQUCY4dzxgAKCRAkDQmsBEOq
ua6MAQCYfYVZAsH1NgOid00l0b52FcccC2/s0ITlu8jm7ZQs6wEAhKRvdwKu6lsC
VQgfYht9U8f+lQdK562Fh/ONyn6DzQw=
=M1ug
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--T6xhMxlHU34Bk0ad--