lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs: do not push freeing inode to b_dirty_time list
On Sun 13-11-22 17:24:39, Svyatoslav Feldsherov wrote:
> After commit cbfecb927f42 ("fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode
> already has I_DIRTY_INODE") writeiback_single_inode can push inode with
> I_DIRTY_TIME set to b_dirty_time list. In case of freeing inode with
> I_DIRTY_TIME set this can happened after deletion of inode io_list at
> evict. Stack trace is following.
>
> evict
> fat_evict_inode
> fat_truncate_blocks
> fat_flush_inodes
> writeback_inode
> sync_inode_metadata
> writeback_single_inode
>
> This will lead to use after free in flusher thread.
>
> Fixes: cbfecb927f42 ("fs: record I_DIRTY_TIME even if inode already has I_DIRTY_INODE")
> Reported-by: syzbot+6ba92bd00d5093f7e371@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Feldsherov <feldsherov@google.com>

Thanks for the analysis! I was scratching my head over this syzbot report
for a while and it didn't occur to me somebody could be calling
writeback_single_inode() from the .evict callback.

Also what contributes to the problem is that FAT calls
sync_inode_metadata(inode, 0) so it is not marking this final flush as data
integrity sync and so we happily leave the I_DIRTY_TIME bit set.

> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 443f83382b9b..31c93cbdb3fe 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -1718,7 +1718,7 @@ static int writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> */
> if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL))
> inode_cgwb_move_to_attached(inode, wb);
> - else if (!(inode->i_state & I_SYNC_QUEUED)) {
> + else if (!(inode->i_state & (I_SYNC_QUEUED | I_FREEING))) {
> if ((inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
> redirty_tail_locked(inode, wb);
> else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) {

So even calling inode_cgwb_move_to_attached() is not safe when I_FREEING is
already set. So I belive the I_FREEING bit check needs to be before this
whole if block.

I also think we should add some assertions into i_io_list handling
functions to complain if I_FREEING bit is set to catch these problems
earlier which means to be also more careful in __mark_inode_dirty(). But
this is for a separate cleanup.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-14 11:47    [W:0.143 / U:0.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site