Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-183651-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Message-ID: <e57ae68f-29c3-41ac-bf16-f11d546dd958@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 19:24:06 +0800
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/12] cachefiles: never get a new anonymous fd if
 ondemand_id is valid
To: Baokun Li <libaokun@huaweicloud.com>,
 Jingbo Xu <jefflexu@linux.alibaba.com>, netfs@lists.linux.dev,
 dhowells@redhat.com, jlayton@kernel.org
Cc: zhujia.zj@bytedance.com, linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org,
 linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 yangerkun@huawei.com, houtao1@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com,
 wozizhi@huawei.com, Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
References: <20240515084601.3240503-1-libaokun@huaweicloud.com>
 <20240515084601.3240503-9-libaokun@huaweicloud.com>
 <f4d24738-76a2-4998-9a28-493599cd7eae@linux.alibaba.com>
 <d62b162d-acb3-2fa7-085e-79da3278091a@huaweicloud.com>
 <a3ca2292-0218-45f6-8afe-4319a10b69e2@linux.alibaba.com>
 <5b1b2719-2123-9218-97b4-ccda8b5cb3b4@huaweicloud.com>
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <5b1b2719-2123-9218-97b4-ccda8b5cb3b4@huaweicloud.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 2024/5/20 19:14, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2024/5/20 17:24, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>
>> On 5/20/24 5:07 PM, Baokun Li wrote:
>>> On 2024/5/20 16:43, Jingbo Xu wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/24 4:45 PM, libaokun@huaweicloud.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
>>>>>
> SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid this, allocate a new anonymous fd only if no anonymous fd has
>>>>> been allocated (ondemand_id == 0) or if the previously allocated
>>>>> anonymous
>>>>> fd has been closed (ondemand_id == -1). Moreover, returns an error if
>>>>> ondemand_id is valid, letting the daemon know that the current userland
>>>>> restore logic is abnormal and needs to be checked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: c8383054506c ("cachefiles: notify the user daemon when looking
>>>>> up cookie")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
>>>> The LOCs of this fix is quite under control.  But still it seems that
>>>> the worst consequence is that the (potential) malicious daemon gets
>>>> hung.  No more effect to the system or other processes.  Or does a
>>>> non-malicious daemon have any chance having the same issue?
>>> If we enable hung_task_panic, it may cause panic to crash the server.
>> Then this issue has nothing to do with this patch?  As long as a
>> malicious daemon doesn't close the anonymous fd after umounting, then I
>> guess a following attempt of mounting cookie with the same name will
>> also wait and hung there?
>>
> Yes, a daemon that only reads requests but doesn't process them will
> cause hung，but the daemon will obey the basic constraints when we
> test it.

If we'd really like to enhanace this ("hung_task_panic"), I think
you'd better to switch wait_for_completion() to
wait_for_completion_killable() at least IMHO anyway.

Thanks,
Gao Xiang