Feedback-ID: i31e841b0:Fastmail
Message-ID: <5b86f03b-020b-1584-be8f-b7dc7277fa0a@themaw.net>
Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 12:27:55 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] autofs: fix memory leak of waitqueues in
 autofs_catatonic_mode
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Fedor Pchelkin <pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
        Takeshi Misawa <jeliantsurux@gmail.com>,
        autofs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@ispras.ru>,
        lvc-project@linuxtesting.org
References: <20230211195950.452364-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
From:   Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
In-Reply-To: <20230211195950.452364-1-pchelkin@ispras.ru>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/2/23 03:59, Fedor Pchelkin wrote:
> Syzkaller reports the leak [1]. It is reproducible.
>
> The following patch fixes the leak. It was proposed by Takeshi Misawa and
> tested by Syzbot.
>
> In other places of the code the waitqueue is freed when its wait_ctr
> becomes zero (see autofs_wait_release). So I think it is not actually
> supposed that inside autofs_catatonic_mode wait_ctr cannot be decreased to
> zero. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This is a bit had to read but I think your saying there's an assumption

that wait_ctr can't become zero in autofs_catatonic_mode().


That's correct, the case of a waiting process getting sent a signal is

not accounted for and this can (as you observed) lead to the wait not

being freed and also not being freed at umount.


I think the change here should be sufficient to resolve the leak and

I can't think of any cases where this could cause a further problem.


>
> Also, looking at the discussion [2] of the '[PATCH] autofs4: use wake_up()
> instead of wake_up_interruptible', shouldn't wake_up_interruptible()
> inside autofs_catatonic_mode() be replaced with wake_up()?

This does imply that [2] should have been applied to autofs_catatonic_mode()

as well, I'm still trying to grok if that change would cause side effects

for the change here but I think not.


Ian