Hello, Trond,
In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.
So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code? (If so,
no bug -- but a comment might be good.)
Thanx, Paul
void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
{
struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
struct rpc_cred *cred;
cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
if (cred)
put_rpccred(cred);
rcu_read_lock();
xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
rcu_read_unlock();
dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
__func__, xprt);
xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
kfree(session);
}
On Feb 12, 2014, at 16:42, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, Trond,
>
> In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
> leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
> If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
> bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.
>
> So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code? (If so,
> no bug -- but a comment might be good.)
>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
> {
> struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
> struct rpc_cred *cred;
>
> cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
> nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
> if (cred)
> put_rpccred(cred);
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
> rcu_read_unlock();
> dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
> __func__, xprt);
> xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
> nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
> kfree(session);
> }
>
Hi Paul,
nfs4_destroy_session() is only called when we?re tearing down the struct nfs_client that owns the cl_rppcclient, and the associated cl_xprt, so the code above should be safe, despite being ugly.
Is there a better annotation for use in the above kind of situation?
Cheers,
Trond
_________________________________
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
[email protected]
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 04:55:02PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 16:42, Paul E. McKenney <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hello, Trond,
> >
> > In nfs4_destroy_session(), there is an rcu_dereference() that looks to
> > leak the returned pointer out of an RCU read-side critical section.
> > If the pointed-to object might have just now been created, this is a
> > bug because xprt_destroy_backchannel() dereferences this pointer.
> >
> > So, does xprt_destroy_backchannel() exclude creation-side code? (If so,
> > no bug -- but a comment might be good.)
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
> > void nfs4_destroy_session(struct nfs4_session *session)
> > {
> > struct rpc_xprt *xprt;
> > struct rpc_cred *cred;
> >
> > cred = nfs4_get_clid_cred(session->clp);
> > nfs4_proc_destroy_session(session, cred);
> > if (cred)
> > put_rpccred(cred);
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > xprt = rcu_dereference(session->clp->cl_rpcclient->cl_xprt);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > dprintk("%s Destroy backchannel for xprt %p\n",
> > __func__, xprt);
> > xprt_destroy_backchannel(xprt, NFS41_BC_MIN_CALLBACKS);
> > nfs4_destroy_session_slot_tables(session);
> > kfree(session);
> > }
> >
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> nfs4_destroy_session() is only called when we’re tearing down the struct nfs_client that owns the cl_rppcclient, and the associated cl_xprt, so the code above should be safe, despite being ugly.
>
> Is there a better annotation for use in the above kind of situation?
One approach would be to add a comment on the rcu_dereference() stating
that creation-side code is excluded, e.g., via locking or by the data
structures no longer being accessible. Another approach would be to
move the rcu_read_unlock() to follow the xprt_destroy_backchannel(),
assuming none of the code that would be pulled into the RCU read-side
critical section can block.
The second approach would prevent false positives from the RCU pointer
leak detectors that are being worked on.
Thanx, Paul