* [PATCH 01/15] block/loop: Don't grab "struct file" for vfs_getattr() operation.
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 02/15] block/loop: Use global lock for ioctl() operation Jan Kara
` (14 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
vfs_getattr() needs "struct path" rather than "struct file".
Let's use path_get()/path_put() rather than get_file()/fput().
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index ea9debf59b22..50c81ff44ae2 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1205,7 +1205,7 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
static int
loop_get_status(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 *info)
{
- struct file *file;
+ struct path path;
struct kstat stat;
int ret;
@@ -1230,16 +1230,16 @@ loop_get_status(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 *info)
}
/* Drop lo_ctl_mutex while we call into the filesystem. */
- file = get_file(lo->lo_backing_file);
+ path = lo->lo_backing_file->f_path;
+ path_get(&path);
mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
- ret = vfs_getattr(&file->f_path, &stat, STATX_INO,
- AT_STATX_SYNC_AS_STAT);
+ ret = vfs_getattr(&path, &stat, STATX_INO, AT_STATX_SYNC_AS_STAT);
if (!ret) {
info->lo_device = huge_encode_dev(stat.dev);
info->lo_inode = stat.ino;
info->lo_rdevice = huge_encode_dev(stat.rdev);
}
- fput(file);
+ path_put(&path);
return ret;
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 02/15] block/loop: Use global lock for ioctl() operation.
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] block/loop: Don't grab "struct file" for vfs_getattr() operation Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 03/15] loop: Fold __loop_release into loop_release Jan Kara
` (13 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
syzbot is reporting NULL pointer dereference [1] which is caused by
race condition between ioctl(loop_fd, LOOP_CLR_FD, 0) versus
ioctl(other_loop_fd, LOOP_SET_FD, loop_fd) due to traversing other
loop devices at loop_validate_file() without holding corresponding
lo->lo_ctl_mutex locks.
Since ioctl() request on loop devices is not frequent operation, we don't
need fine grained locking. Let's use global lock in order to allow safe
traversal at loop_validate_file().
Note that syzbot is also reporting circular locking dependency between
bdev->bd_mutex and lo->lo_ctl_mutex [2] which is caused by calling
blkdev_reread_part() with lock held. This patch does not address it.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=f3cfe26e785d85f9ee259f385515291d21bd80a3
[2] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=bf154052f0eea4bc7712499e4569505907d15889
Signed-off-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+bf89c128e05dd6c62523@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
drivers/block/loop.h | 1 -
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 50c81ff44ae2..d0f1b7106572 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@
static DEFINE_IDR(loop_index_idr);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(loop_index_mutex);
+static DEFINE_MUTEX(loop_ctl_mutex);
static int max_part;
static int part_shift;
@@ -1047,7 +1048,7 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
*/
if (atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 1) {
lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return 0;
}
@@ -1100,12 +1101,12 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
if (!part_shift)
lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
loop_unprepare_queue(lo);
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
/*
- * Need not hold lo_ctl_mutex to fput backing file.
- * Calling fput holding lo_ctl_mutex triggers a circular
+ * Need not hold loop_ctl_mutex to fput backing file.
+ * Calling fput holding loop_ctl_mutex triggers a circular
* lock dependency possibility warning as fput can take
- * bd_mutex which is usually taken before lo_ctl_mutex.
+ * bd_mutex which is usually taken before loop_ctl_mutex.
*/
fput(filp);
return 0;
@@ -1210,7 +1211,7 @@ loop_get_status(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 *info)
int ret;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound) {
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -ENXIO;
}
@@ -1229,10 +1230,10 @@ loop_get_status(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 *info)
lo->lo_encrypt_key_size);
}
- /* Drop lo_ctl_mutex while we call into the filesystem. */
+ /* Drop loop_ctl_mutex while we call into the filesystem. */
path = lo->lo_backing_file->f_path;
path_get(&path);
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
ret = vfs_getattr(&path, &stat, STATX_INO, AT_STATX_SYNC_AS_STAT);
if (!ret) {
info->lo_device = huge_encode_dev(stat.dev);
@@ -1324,7 +1325,7 @@ loop_get_status_old(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info __user *arg) {
int err;
if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -EINVAL;
}
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
@@ -1342,7 +1343,7 @@ loop_get_status64(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 __user *arg) {
int err;
if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -EINVAL;
}
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
@@ -1400,7 +1401,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
struct loop_device *lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
int err;
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
if (err)
goto out_unlocked;
@@ -1412,7 +1413,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
err = loop_change_fd(lo, bdev, arg);
break;
case LOOP_CLR_FD:
- /* loop_clr_fd would have unlocked lo_ctl_mutex on success */
+ /* loop_clr_fd would have unlocked loop_ctl_mutex on success */
err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
if (!err)
goto out_unlocked;
@@ -1425,7 +1426,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
err = loop_get_status_old(lo, (struct loop_info __user *) arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks lo_ctl_mutex */
+ /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
goto out_unlocked;
case LOOP_SET_STATUS64:
err = -EPERM;
@@ -1435,7 +1436,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS64:
err = loop_get_status64(lo, (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks lo_ctl_mutex */
+ /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
goto out_unlocked;
case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
err = -EPERM;
@@ -1455,7 +1456,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
default:
err = lo->ioctl ? lo->ioctl(lo, cmd, arg) : -EINVAL;
}
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
out_unlocked:
return err;
@@ -1572,7 +1573,7 @@ loop_get_status_compat(struct loop_device *lo,
int err;
if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -EINVAL;
}
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
@@ -1589,19 +1590,19 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
switch(cmd) {
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
- err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ err = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (!err) {
err = loop_set_status_compat(lo,
(const struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
- err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ err = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (!err) {
err = loop_get_status_compat(lo,
(struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks lo_ctl_mutex */
+ /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
}
break;
case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
@@ -1648,7 +1649,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo)
if (atomic_dec_return(&lo->lo_refcnt))
return;
- mutex_lock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) {
/*
* In autoclear mode, stop the loop thread
@@ -1666,7 +1667,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo)
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
}
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
}
static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
@@ -1712,10 +1713,10 @@ static int unregister_transfer_cb(int id, void *ptr, void *data)
struct loop_device *lo = ptr;
struct loop_func_table *xfer = data;
- mutex_lock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (lo->lo_encryption == xfer)
loop_release_xfer(lo);
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return 0;
}
@@ -1896,7 +1897,6 @@ static int loop_add(struct loop_device **l, int i)
if (!part_shift)
disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT;
- mutex_init(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
atomic_set(&lo->lo_refcnt, 0);
lo->lo_number = i;
spin_lock_init(&lo->lo_lock);
@@ -2009,21 +2009,21 @@ static long loop_control_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
ret = loop_lookup(&lo, parm);
if (ret < 0)
break;
- ret = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ ret = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (ret)
break;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_unbound) {
ret = -EBUSY;
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
}
if (atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 0) {
ret = -EBUSY;
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
}
lo->lo_disk->private_data = NULL;
- mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_ctl_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
idr_remove(&loop_index_idr, lo->lo_number);
loop_remove(lo);
break;
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.h b/drivers/block/loop.h
index 4d42c7af7de7..af75a5ee4094 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.h
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.h
@@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ struct loop_device {
spinlock_t lo_lock;
int lo_state;
- struct mutex lo_ctl_mutex;
struct kthread_worker worker;
struct task_struct *worker_task;
bool use_dio;
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 03/15] loop: Fold __loop_release into loop_release
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 01/15] block/loop: Don't grab "struct file" for vfs_getattr() operation Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 02/15] block/loop: Use global lock for ioctl() operation Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 04/15] loop: Get rid of loop_index_mutex Jan Kara
` (12 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
__loop_release() has a single call site. Fold it there. This is
currently not a huge win but it will make following replacement of
loop_index_mutex more obvious.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 16 +++++++---------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index d0f1b7106572..cc43d835fe6f 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1642,12 +1642,15 @@ static int lo_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
return err;
}
-static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo)
+static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
{
+ struct loop_device *lo;
int err;
+ mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ lo = disk->private_data;
if (atomic_dec_return(&lo->lo_refcnt))
- return;
+ goto unlock_index;
mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) {
@@ -1657,7 +1660,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo)
*/
err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
if (!err)
- return;
+ goto unlock_index;
} else if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound) {
/*
* Otherwise keep thread (if running) and config,
@@ -1668,12 +1671,7 @@ static void __lo_release(struct loop_device *lo)
}
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
-}
-
-static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
-{
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
- __lo_release(disk->private_data);
+unlock_index:
mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 04/15] loop: Get rid of loop_index_mutex
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 03/15] loop: Fold __loop_release into loop_release Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 05/15] loop: Push lo_ctl_mutex down into individual ioctls Jan Kara
` (11 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Now that loop_ctl_mutex is global, just get rid of loop_index_mutex as
there is no good reason to keep these two separate and it just
complicates the locking.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index cc43d835fe6f..3fa5e63944a4 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -83,7 +83,6 @@
#include <linux/uaccess.h>
static DEFINE_IDR(loop_index_idr);
-static DEFINE_MUTEX(loop_index_mutex);
static DEFINE_MUTEX(loop_ctl_mutex);
static int max_part;
@@ -1627,9 +1626,11 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
static int lo_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
{
struct loop_device *lo;
- int err = 0;
+ int err;
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ err = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
if (!lo) {
err = -ENXIO;
@@ -1638,7 +1639,7 @@ static int lo_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
atomic_inc(&lo->lo_refcnt);
out:
- mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return err;
}
@@ -1647,12 +1648,11 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
struct loop_device *lo;
int err;
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
lo = disk->private_data;
if (atomic_dec_return(&lo->lo_refcnt))
- goto unlock_index;
+ goto out_unlock;
- mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) {
/*
* In autoclear mode, stop the loop thread
@@ -1660,7 +1660,7 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
*/
err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
if (!err)
- goto unlock_index;
+ return;
} else if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound) {
/*
* Otherwise keep thread (if running) and config,
@@ -1670,9 +1670,8 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
}
+out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
-unlock_index:
- mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
}
static const struct block_device_operations lo_fops = {
@@ -1973,7 +1972,7 @@ static struct kobject *loop_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, void *data)
struct kobject *kobj;
int err;
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
err = loop_lookup(&lo, MINOR(dev) >> part_shift);
if (err < 0)
err = loop_add(&lo, MINOR(dev) >> part_shift);
@@ -1981,7 +1980,7 @@ static struct kobject *loop_probe(dev_t dev, int *part, void *data)
kobj = NULL;
else
kobj = get_disk_and_module(lo->lo_disk);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
*part = 0;
return kobj;
@@ -1991,9 +1990,13 @@ static long loop_control_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
unsigned long parm)
{
struct loop_device *lo;
- int ret = -ENOSYS;
+ int ret;
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ ret = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = -ENOSYS;
switch (cmd) {
case LOOP_CTL_ADD:
ret = loop_lookup(&lo, parm);
@@ -2007,9 +2010,6 @@ static long loop_control_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
ret = loop_lookup(&lo, parm);
if (ret < 0)
break;
- ret = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- if (ret)
- break;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_unbound) {
ret = -EBUSY;
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
@@ -2021,7 +2021,6 @@ static long loop_control_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
break;
}
lo->lo_disk->private_data = NULL;
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
idr_remove(&loop_index_idr, lo->lo_number);
loop_remove(lo);
break;
@@ -2031,7 +2030,7 @@ static long loop_control_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd,
break;
ret = loop_add(&lo, -1);
}
- mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return ret;
}
@@ -2115,10 +2114,10 @@ static int __init loop_init(void)
THIS_MODULE, loop_probe, NULL, NULL);
/* pre-create number of devices given by config or max_loop */
- mutex_lock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
for (i = 0; i < nr; i++)
loop_add(&lo, i);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_index_mutex);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
printk(KERN_INFO "loop: module loaded\n");
return 0;
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 05/15] loop: Push lo_ctl_mutex down into individual ioctls
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 04/15] loop: Get rid of loop_index_mutex Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 06/15] loop: Split setting of lo_state from loop_clr_fd Jan Kara
` (10 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Push acquisition of lo_ctl_mutex down into individual ioctl handling
branches. This is a preparatory step for pushing the lock down into
individual ioctl handling functions so that they can release the lock as
they need it. We also factor out some simple ioctl handlers that will
not need any special handling to reduce unnecessary code duplication.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 3fa5e63944a4..b7b3b4ae0896 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1394,70 +1394,108 @@ static int loop_set_block_size(struct loop_device *lo, unsigned long arg)
return 0;
}
-static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
- unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
+static int lo_simple_ioctl(struct loop_device *lo, unsigned int cmd,
+ unsigned long arg)
{
- struct loop_device *lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
int err;
err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
if (err)
- goto out_unlocked;
+ return err;
+ switch (cmd) {
+ case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
+ err = loop_set_capacity(lo);
+ break;
+ case LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO:
+ err = loop_set_dio(lo, arg);
+ break;
+ case LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE:
+ err = loop_set_block_size(lo, arg);
+ break;
+ default:
+ err = lo->ioctl ? lo->ioctl(lo, cmd, arg) : -EINVAL;
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ return err;
+}
+
+static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
+ unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
+{
+ struct loop_device *lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
+ int err;
switch (cmd) {
case LOOP_SET_FD:
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_set_fd(lo, mode, bdev, arg);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
case LOOP_CHANGE_FD:
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_change_fd(lo, bdev, arg);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
case LOOP_CLR_FD:
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
/* loop_clr_fd would have unlocked loop_ctl_mutex on success */
err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
- if (!err)
- goto out_unlocked;
+ if (err)
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
err = -EPERM;
- if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_set_status_old(lo,
(struct loop_info __user *)arg);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ }
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_get_status_old(lo, (struct loop_info __user *) arg);
/* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
- goto out_unlocked;
+ break;
case LOOP_SET_STATUS64:
err = -EPERM;
- if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_set_status64(lo,
(struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ }
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS64:
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
err = loop_get_status64(lo, (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
/* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
- goto out_unlocked;
- case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
- err = -EPERM;
- if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- err = loop_set_capacity(lo);
break;
+ case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
case LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO:
- err = -EPERM;
- if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- err = loop_set_dio(lo, arg);
- break;
case LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE:
- err = -EPERM;
- if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- err = loop_set_block_size(lo, arg);
- break;
+ if (!(mode & FMODE_WRITE) && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
+ return -EPERM;
+ /* Fall through */
default:
- err = lo->ioctl ? lo->ioctl(lo, cmd, arg) : -EINVAL;
+ err = lo_simple_ioctl(lo, cmd, arg);
+ break;
}
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
-out_unlocked:
return err;
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 06/15] loop: Split setting of lo_state from loop_clr_fd
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 05/15] loop: Push lo_ctl_mutex down into individual ioctls Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 07/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down into loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
` (9 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Move setting of lo_state to Lo_rundown out into the callers. That will
allow us to unlock loop_ctl_mutex while the loop device is protected
from other changes by its special state.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index b7b3b4ae0896..2410921bd9ff 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -976,7 +976,7 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
/* Grab the block_device to prevent its destruction after we
- * put /dev/loopXX inode. Later in loop_clr_fd() we bdput(bdev).
+ * put /dev/loopXX inode. Later in __loop_clr_fd() we bdput(bdev).
*/
bdgrab(bdev);
return 0;
@@ -1026,31 +1026,15 @@ loop_init_xfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_func_table *xfer,
return err;
}
-static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
+static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
{
struct file *filp = lo->lo_backing_file;
gfp_t gfp = lo->old_gfp_mask;
struct block_device *bdev = lo->lo_device;
- if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lo->lo_state != Lo_rundown))
return -ENXIO;
- /*
- * If we've explicitly asked to tear down the loop device,
- * and it has an elevated reference count, set it for auto-teardown when
- * the last reference goes away. This stops $!~#$@ udev from
- * preventing teardown because it decided that it needs to run blkid on
- * the loopback device whenever they appear. xfstests is notorious for
- * failing tests because blkid via udev races with a losetup
- * <dev>/do something like mkfs/losetup -d <dev> causing the losetup -d
- * command to fail with EBUSY.
- */
- if (atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 1) {
- lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- return 0;
- }
-
if (filp == NULL)
return -EINVAL;
@@ -1058,7 +1042,6 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
blk_mq_freeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
spin_lock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
- lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
lo->lo_backing_file = NULL;
spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_lock);
@@ -1111,6 +1094,30 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
return 0;
}
+static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
+{
+ if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
+ return -ENXIO;
+ /*
+ * If we've explicitly asked to tear down the loop device,
+ * and it has an elevated reference count, set it for auto-teardown when
+ * the last reference goes away. This stops $!~#$@ udev from
+ * preventing teardown because it decided that it needs to run blkid on
+ * the loopback device whenever they appear. xfstests is notorious for
+ * failing tests because blkid via udev races with a losetup
+ * <dev>/do something like mkfs/losetup -d <dev> causing the losetup -d
+ * command to fail with EBUSY.
+ */
+ if (atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt) > 1) {
+ lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR;
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
+
+ return __loop_clr_fd(lo);
+}
+
static int
loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
{
@@ -1692,11 +1699,14 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
goto out_unlock;
if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_AUTOCLEAR) {
+ if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
+ goto out_unlock;
+ lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
/*
* In autoclear mode, stop the loop thread
* and remove configuration after last close.
*/
- err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
+ err = __loop_clr_fd(lo);
if (!err)
return;
} else if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound) {
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 07/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down into loop_clr_fd()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 06/15] loop: Split setting of lo_state from loop_clr_fd Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 08/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_get_status() Jan Kara
` (8 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
loop_clr_fd() has a weird locking convention that is expects
loop_ctl_mutex held, releases it on success and keeps it on failure.
Untangle the mess by moving locking of loop_ctl_mutex into
loop_clr_fd().
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 2410921bd9ff..be41d5dcecd2 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1028,15 +1028,22 @@ loop_init_xfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_func_table *xfer,
static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
{
- struct file *filp = lo->lo_backing_file;
+ struct file *filp = NULL;
gfp_t gfp = lo->old_gfp_mask;
struct block_device *bdev = lo->lo_device;
+ int err = 0;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lo->lo_state != Lo_rundown))
- return -ENXIO;
+ mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lo->lo_state != Lo_rundown)) {
+ err = -ENXIO;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
- if (filp == NULL)
- return -EINVAL;
+ filp = lo->lo_backing_file;
+ if (filp == NULL) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
/* freeze request queue during the transition */
blk_mq_freeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
@@ -1083,6 +1090,7 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
if (!part_shift)
lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
loop_unprepare_queue(lo);
+out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
/*
* Need not hold loop_ctl_mutex to fput backing file.
@@ -1090,14 +1098,22 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
* lock dependency possibility warning as fput can take
* bd_mutex which is usually taken before loop_ctl_mutex.
*/
- fput(filp);
- return 0;
+ if (filp)
+ fput(filp);
+ return err;
}
static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
{
- if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
+ int err;
+
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
+ if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound) {
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -ENXIO;
+ }
/*
* If we've explicitly asked to tear down the loop device,
* and it has an elevated reference count, set it for auto-teardown when
@@ -1114,6 +1130,7 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
return 0;
}
lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return __loop_clr_fd(lo);
}
@@ -1448,14 +1465,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
break;
case LOOP_CLR_FD:
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
- /* loop_clr_fd would have unlocked loop_ctl_mutex on success */
- err = loop_clr_fd(lo);
- if (err)
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- break;
+ return loop_clr_fd(lo);
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
err = -EPERM;
if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
@@ -1691,7 +1701,6 @@ static int lo_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
{
struct loop_device *lo;
- int err;
mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
lo = disk->private_data;
@@ -1702,13 +1711,13 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
goto out_unlock;
lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
/*
* In autoclear mode, stop the loop thread
* and remove configuration after last close.
*/
- err = __loop_clr_fd(lo);
- if (!err)
- return;
+ __loop_clr_fd(lo);
+ return;
} else if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound) {
/*
* Otherwise keep thread (if running) and config,
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 08/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_get_status()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 07/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down into loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 09/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_status() Jan Kara
` (7 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_get_status() to avoid the unusual
convention that the function gets called with loop_ctl_mutex held and
releases it.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 37 ++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index be41d5dcecd2..cb4eeff91238 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1233,6 +1233,9 @@ loop_get_status(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 *info)
struct kstat stat;
int ret;
+ ret = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound) {
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return -ENXIO;
@@ -1347,10 +1350,8 @@ loop_get_status_old(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info __user *arg) {
struct loop_info64 info64;
int err;
- if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (!arg)
return -EINVAL;
- }
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
if (!err)
err = loop_info64_to_old(&info64, &info);
@@ -1365,10 +1366,8 @@ loop_get_status64(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_info64 __user *arg) {
struct loop_info64 info64;
int err;
- if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (!arg)
return -EINVAL;
- }
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
if (!err && copy_to_user(arg, &info64, sizeof(info64)))
err = -EFAULT;
@@ -1478,12 +1477,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
- err = loop_get_status_old(lo, (struct loop_info __user *) arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
- break;
+ return loop_get_status_old(lo, (struct loop_info __user *) arg);
case LOOP_SET_STATUS64:
err = -EPERM;
if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
@@ -1496,12 +1490,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS64:
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
- err = loop_get_status64(lo, (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
- break;
+ return loop_get_status64(lo, (struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
case LOOP_SET_DIRECT_IO:
case LOOP_SET_BLOCK_SIZE:
@@ -1626,10 +1615,8 @@ loop_get_status_compat(struct loop_device *lo,
struct loop_info64 info64;
int err;
- if (!arg) {
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (!arg)
return -EINVAL;
- }
err = loop_get_status(lo, &info64);
if (!err)
err = loop_info64_to_compat(&info64, arg);
@@ -1652,12 +1639,8 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
- err = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- if (!err) {
- err = loop_get_status_compat(lo,
- (struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
- /* loop_get_status() unlocks loop_ctl_mutex */
- }
+ err = loop_get_status_compat(lo,
+ (struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
break;
case LOOP_SET_CAPACITY:
case LOOP_CLR_FD:
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 09/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_status()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 08/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_get_status() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 10/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_fd() Jan Kara
` (6 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_status(). We will need this to be
able to call loop_reread_partitions() without loop_ctl_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index cb4eeff91238..5661489d11a7 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1142,46 +1142,55 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
struct loop_func_table *xfer;
kuid_t uid = current_uid();
+ err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (err)
+ return err;
if (lo->lo_encrypt_key_size &&
!uid_eq(lo->lo_key_owner, uid) &&
- !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
- return -EPERM;
- if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
- return -ENXIO;
- if ((unsigned int) info->lo_encrypt_key_size > LO_KEY_SIZE)
- return -EINVAL;
+ !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
+ err = -EPERM;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+ if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound) {
+ err = -ENXIO;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+ if ((unsigned int) info->lo_encrypt_key_size > LO_KEY_SIZE) {
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
/* I/O need to be drained during transfer transition */
blk_mq_freeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
err = loop_release_xfer(lo);
if (err)
- goto exit;
+ goto out_unfreeze;
if (info->lo_encrypt_type) {
unsigned int type = info->lo_encrypt_type;
if (type >= MAX_LO_CRYPT) {
err = -EINVAL;
- goto exit;
+ goto out_unfreeze;
}
xfer = xfer_funcs[type];
if (xfer == NULL) {
err = -EINVAL;
- goto exit;
+ goto out_unfreeze;
}
} else
xfer = NULL;
err = loop_init_xfer(lo, xfer, info);
if (err)
- goto exit;
+ goto out_unfreeze;
if (lo->lo_offset != info->lo_offset ||
lo->lo_sizelimit != info->lo_sizelimit) {
if (figure_loop_size(lo, info->lo_offset, info->lo_sizelimit)) {
err = -EFBIG;
- goto exit;
+ goto out_unfreeze;
}
}
@@ -1213,7 +1222,7 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
/* update dio if lo_offset or transfer is changed */
__loop_update_dio(lo, lo->use_dio);
- exit:
+out_unfreeze:
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
if (!err && (info->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN) &&
@@ -1222,6 +1231,8 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
lo->lo_disk->flags &= ~GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
loop_reread_partitions(lo, lo->lo_device);
}
+out_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return err;
}
@@ -1468,12 +1479,8 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
err = -EPERM;
if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
err = loop_set_status_old(lo,
(struct loop_info __user *)arg);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
@@ -1481,12 +1488,8 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
case LOOP_SET_STATUS64:
err = -EPERM;
if ((mode & FMODE_WRITE) || capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN)) {
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
err = loop_set_status64(lo,
(struct loop_info64 __user *) arg);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
}
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS64:
@@ -1631,12 +1634,8 @@ static int lo_compat_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
switch(cmd) {
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
- err = mutex_lock_killable(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- if (!err) {
- err = loop_set_status_compat(lo,
- (const struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- }
+ err = loop_set_status_compat(lo,
+ (const struct compat_loop_info __user *)arg);
break;
case LOOP_GET_STATUS:
err = loop_get_status_compat(lo,
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 10/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_fd()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 09/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_status() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 11/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_change_fd() Jan Kara
` (5 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Push lo_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_fd(). We will need this to be able to
call loop_reread_partitions() without lo_ctl_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 26 ++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 5661489d11a7..b4500d82238d 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -919,13 +919,17 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
if (!file)
goto out;
+ error = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (error)
+ goto out_putf;
+
error = -EBUSY;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_unbound)
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_unlock;
error = loop_validate_file(file, bdev);
if (error)
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_unlock;
mapping = file->f_mapping;
inode = mapping->host;
@@ -937,10 +941,10 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
error = -EFBIG;
size = get_loop_size(lo, file);
if ((loff_t)(sector_t)size != size)
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_unlock;
error = loop_prepare_queue(lo);
if (error)
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_unlock;
error = 0;
@@ -979,11 +983,14 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
* put /dev/loopXX inode. Later in __loop_clr_fd() we bdput(bdev).
*/
bdgrab(bdev);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return 0;
- out_putf:
+out_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+out_putf:
fput(file);
- out:
+out:
/* This is safe: open() is still holding a reference. */
module_put(THIS_MODULE);
return error;
@@ -1461,12 +1468,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
switch (cmd) {
case LOOP_SET_FD:
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
- err = loop_set_fd(lo, mode, bdev, arg);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- break;
+ return loop_set_fd(lo, mode, bdev, arg);
case LOOP_CHANGE_FD:
err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
if (err)
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 11/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_change_fd()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 10/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_set_fd() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 12/15] loop: Move special partition reread handling in loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
` (4 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_change_fd(). We will need this to be
able to call loop_reread_partitions() without loop_ctl_mutex.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index b4500d82238d..c53ad5e88a7d 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -692,19 +692,22 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
struct file *file, *old_file;
int error;
+ error = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
+ if (error)
+ return error;
error = -ENXIO;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
/* the loop device has to be read-only */
error = -EINVAL;
if (!(lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY))
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
error = -EBADF;
file = fget(arg);
if (!file)
- goto out;
+ goto out_unlock;
error = loop_validate_file(file, bdev);
if (error)
@@ -731,11 +734,13 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
fput(old_file);
if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN)
loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return 0;
- out_putf:
+out_putf:
fput(file);
- out:
+out_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
return error;
}
@@ -1470,12 +1475,7 @@ static int lo_ioctl(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode,
case LOOP_SET_FD:
return loop_set_fd(lo, mode, bdev, arg);
case LOOP_CHANGE_FD:
- err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
- if (err)
- return err;
- err = loop_change_fd(lo, bdev, arg);
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- break;
+ return loop_change_fd(lo, bdev, arg);
case LOOP_CLR_FD:
return loop_clr_fd(lo);
case LOOP_SET_STATUS:
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 12/15] loop: Move special partition reread handling in loop_clr_fd()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 11/15] loop: Push loop_ctl_mutex down to loop_change_fd() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 13/15] loop: Move loop_reread_partitions() out of loop_ctl_mutex Jan Kara
` (3 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
The call of __blkdev_reread_part() from loop_reread_partition() happens
only when we need to invalidate partitions from loop_release(). Thus
move a detection for this into loop_clr_fd() and simplify
loop_reread_partition().
This makes loop_reread_partition() safe to use without loop_ctl_mutex
because we use only lo->lo_number and lo->lo_file_name in case of error
for reporting purposes (thus possibly reporting outdate information is
not a big deal) and we are safe from 'lo' going away under us by
elevated lo->lo_refcnt.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index c53ad5e88a7d..db73fb5f16c7 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -631,18 +631,7 @@ static void loop_reread_partitions(struct loop_device *lo,
{
int rc;
- /*
- * bd_mutex has been held already in release path, so don't
- * acquire it if this function is called in such case.
- *
- * If the reread partition isn't from release path, lo_refcnt
- * must be at least one and it can only become zero when the
- * current holder is released.
- */
- if (!atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt))
- rc = __blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
- else
- rc = blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
+ rc = blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
if (rc)
pr_warn("%s: partition scan of loop%d (%s) failed (rc=%d)\n",
__func__, lo->lo_number, lo->lo_file_name, rc);
@@ -1096,8 +1085,24 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
module_put(THIS_MODULE);
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
- if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN && bdev)
- loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
+ if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN && bdev) {
+ /*
+ * bd_mutex has been held already in release path, so don't
+ * acquire it if this function is called in such case.
+ *
+ * If the reread partition isn't from release path, lo_refcnt
+ * must be at least one and it can only become zero when the
+ * current holder is released.
+ */
+ if (!atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt))
+ err = __blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
+ else
+ err = blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
+ pr_warn("%s: partition scan of loop%d failed (rc=%d)\n",
+ __func__, lo->lo_number, err);
+ /* Device is gone, no point in returning error */
+ err = 0;
+ }
lo->lo_flags = 0;
if (!part_shift)
lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 13/15] loop: Move loop_reread_partitions() out of loop_ctl_mutex
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 12/15] loop: Move special partition reread handling in loop_clr_fd() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 14/15] loop: Fix deadlock when calling blkdev_reread_part() Jan Kara
` (2 subsequent siblings)
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Calling loop_reread_partitions() under loop_ctl_mutex causes lockdep to
complain about circular lock dependency between bdev->bd_mutex and
lo->lo_ctl_mutex. The problem is that on loop device open or close
lo_open() and lo_release() get called with bdev->bd_mutex held and they
need to acquire loop_ctl_mutex. OTOH when loop_reread_partitions() is
called with loop_ctl_mutex held, it will call blkdev_reread_part() which
acquires bdev->bd_mutex. See syzbot report for details [1].
Move all calls of loop_rescan_partitions() out of loop_ctl_mutex to
avoid lockdep warning and fix deadlock possibility.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=bf154052f0eea4bc7712499e4569505907d1588
Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 19 ++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index db73fb5f16c7..0d54c3ee3a96 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -680,6 +680,7 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
{
struct file *file, *old_file;
int error;
+ bool partscan;
error = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
if (error)
@@ -721,9 +722,10 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
fput(old_file);
- if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN)
- loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
+ partscan = lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN;
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (partscan)
+ loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
return 0;
out_putf:
@@ -904,6 +906,7 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
int lo_flags = 0;
int error;
loff_t size;
+ bool partscan;
/* This is safe, since we have a reference from open(). */
__module_get(THIS_MODULE);
@@ -970,14 +973,15 @@ static int loop_set_fd(struct loop_device *lo, fmode_t mode,
lo->lo_state = Lo_bound;
if (part_shift)
lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN;
- if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN)
- loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
+ partscan = lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN;
/* Grab the block_device to prevent its destruction after we
* put /dev/loopXX inode. Later in __loop_clr_fd() we bdput(bdev).
*/
bdgrab(bdev);
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (partscan)
+ loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
return 0;
out_unlock:
@@ -1158,6 +1162,8 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
int err;
struct loop_func_table *xfer;
kuid_t uid = current_uid();
+ struct block_device *bdev;
+ bool partscan = false;
err = mutex_lock_killable_nested(&loop_ctl_mutex, 1);
if (err)
@@ -1246,10 +1252,13 @@ loop_set_status(struct loop_device *lo, const struct loop_info64 *info)
!(lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN)) {
lo->lo_flags |= LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN;
lo->lo_disk->flags &= ~GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
- loop_reread_partitions(lo, lo->lo_device);
+ bdev = lo->lo_device;
+ partscan = true;
}
out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (partscan)
+ loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
return err;
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 14/15] loop: Fix deadlock when calling blkdev_reread_part()
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 13/15] loop: Move loop_reread_partitions() out of loop_ctl_mutex Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 15/15] loop: Avoid circular locking dependency between loop_ctl_mutex and bd_mutex Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:19 ` [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Tetsuo Handa
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Calling blkdev_reread_part() under loop_ctl_mutex causes lockdep to
complain about circular lock dependency between bdev->bd_mutex and
lo->lo_ctl_mutex. The problem is that on loop device open or close
lo_open() and lo_release() get called with bdev->bd_mutex held and they
need to acquire loop_ctl_mutex. OTOH when loop_reread_partitions() is
called with loop_ctl_mutex held, it will call blkdev_reread_part() which
acquires bdev->bd_mutex. See syzbot report for details [1].
Move call to blkdev_reread_part() in __loop_clr_fd() from under
loop_ctl_mutex to finish fixing of the lockdep warning and the possible
deadlock.
[1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=bf154052f0eea4bc7712499e4569505907d1588
Reported-by: syzbot <syzbot+4684a000d5abdade83fac55b1e7d1f935ef1936e@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index 0d54c3ee3a96..d6b3fac25040 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -1031,12 +1031,14 @@ loop_init_xfer(struct loop_device *lo, struct loop_func_table *xfer,
return err;
}
-static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
+static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo, bool release)
{
struct file *filp = NULL;
gfp_t gfp = lo->old_gfp_mask;
struct block_device *bdev = lo->lo_device;
int err = 0;
+ bool partscan = false;
+ int lo_number;
mutex_lock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(lo->lo_state != Lo_rundown)) {
@@ -1089,7 +1091,15 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
module_put(THIS_MODULE);
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
- if (lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN && bdev) {
+ partscan = lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN && bdev;
+ lo_number = lo->lo_number;
+ lo->lo_flags = 0;
+ if (!part_shift)
+ lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
+ loop_unprepare_queue(lo);
+out_unlock:
+ mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (partscan) {
/*
* bd_mutex has been held already in release path, so don't
* acquire it if this function is called in such case.
@@ -1098,21 +1108,15 @@ static int __loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
* must be at least one and it can only become zero when the
* current holder is released.
*/
- if (!atomic_read(&lo->lo_refcnt))
+ if (release)
err = __blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
else
err = blkdev_reread_part(bdev);
pr_warn("%s: partition scan of loop%d failed (rc=%d)\n",
- __func__, lo->lo_number, err);
+ __func__, lo_number, err);
/* Device is gone, no point in returning error */
err = 0;
}
- lo->lo_flags = 0;
- if (!part_shift)
- lo->lo_disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
- loop_unprepare_queue(lo);
-out_unlock:
- mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
/*
* Need not hold loop_ctl_mutex to fput backing file.
* Calling fput holding loop_ctl_mutex triggers a circular
@@ -1153,7 +1157,7 @@ static int loop_clr_fd(struct loop_device *lo)
lo->lo_state = Lo_rundown;
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
- return __loop_clr_fd(lo);
+ return __loop_clr_fd(lo, false);
}
static int
@@ -1714,7 +1718,7 @@ static void lo_release(struct gendisk *disk, fmode_t mode)
* In autoclear mode, stop the loop thread
* and remove configuration after last close.
*/
- __loop_clr_fd(lo);
+ __loop_clr_fd(lo, true);
return;
} else if (lo->lo_state == Lo_bound) {
/*
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* [PATCH 15/15] loop: Avoid circular locking dependency between loop_ctl_mutex and bd_mutex
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 14/15] loop: Fix deadlock when calling blkdev_reread_part() Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:04 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 10:19 ` [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Tetsuo Handa
15 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 10:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jens Axboe; +Cc: linux-block, Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara
Code in loop_change_fd() drops reference to the old file (and also the
new file in a failure case) under loop_ctl_mutex. Similarly to a
situation in loop_set_fd() this can create a circular locking dependency
if this was the last reference holding the file open. Delay dropping of
the file reference until we have released loop_ctl_mutex.
Reported-by: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
drivers/block/loop.c | 26 +++++++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
index d6b3fac25040..a517247a32fa 100644
--- a/drivers/block/loop.c
+++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
@@ -678,7 +678,7 @@ static int loop_validate_file(struct file *file, struct block_device *bdev)
static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
unsigned int arg)
{
- struct file *file, *old_file;
+ struct file *file = NULL, *old_file;
int error;
bool partscan;
@@ -687,21 +687,21 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
return error;
error = -ENXIO;
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
- goto out_unlock;
+ goto out_err;
/* the loop device has to be read-only */
error = -EINVAL;
if (!(lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_READ_ONLY))
- goto out_unlock;
+ goto out_err;
error = -EBADF;
file = fget(arg);
if (!file)
- goto out_unlock;
+ goto out_err;
error = loop_validate_file(file, bdev);
if (error)
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_err;
old_file = lo->lo_backing_file;
@@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
/* size of the new backing store needs to be the same */
if (get_loop_size(lo, file) != get_loop_size(lo, old_file))
- goto out_putf;
+ goto out_err;
/* and ... switch */
blk_mq_freeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
@@ -720,18 +720,22 @@ static int loop_change_fd(struct loop_device *lo, struct block_device *bdev,
lo->old_gfp_mask & ~(__GFP_IO|__GFP_FS));
loop_update_dio(lo);
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(lo->lo_queue);
-
- fput(old_file);
partscan = lo->lo_flags & LO_FLAGS_PARTSCAN;
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ /*
+ * We must drop file reference outside of loop_ctl_mutex as dropping
+ * the file ref can take bd_mutex which creates circular locking
+ * dependency.
+ */
+ fput(old_file);
if (partscan)
loop_reread_partitions(lo, bdev);
return 0;
-out_putf:
- fput(file);
-out_unlock:
+out_err:
mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
+ if (file)
+ fput(file);
return error;
}
--
2.16.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-10 10:04 [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Jan Kara
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2018-10-10 10:04 ` [PATCH 15/15] loop: Avoid circular locking dependency between loop_ctl_mutex and bd_mutex Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 10:19 ` Tetsuo Handa
2018-10-10 11:42 ` Johannes Thumshirn
15 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Tetsuo Handa @ 2018-10-10 10:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Jens Axboe, linux-block
On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> protecting the loop device.
>
> I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> can try running it. Review is welcome!
Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
>
> Changes since v1:
> * Added patch moving fput() calls in loop_change_fd() from under loop_ctl_mutex
> * Fixed bug in loop_control_ioctl() where it failed to return error properly
>
> Honza
>
> [1] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=f3cfe26e785d85f9ee259f385515291d21bd80a3
> [2] https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=bf154052f0eea4bc7712499e4569505907d15889
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-10 10:19 ` [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks Tetsuo Handa
@ 2018-10-10 11:42 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-10 12:28 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Thumshirn @ 2018-10-10 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tetsuo Handa; +Cc: Jan Kara, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > protecting the loop device.
> >
> > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > can try running it. Review is welcome!
>
> Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
Byte,
Johannes
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs
jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N�rnberg
GF: Felix Imend�rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N�rnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-10 11:42 ` Johannes Thumshirn
@ 2018-10-10 12:28 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 12:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-10 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Thumshirn; +Cc: Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > protecting the loop device.
> > >
> > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> >
> > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
>
> Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-10 12:28 ` Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-10 12:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Thumshirn @ 2018-10-10 12:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Tetsuo Handa, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 02:28:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > > protecting the loop device.
> > > >
> > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> > >
> > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
> >
> > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
>
> Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
> syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
There is one C repropducer which can be used (it just needs minor
modifications to pass in the device instead of loop0).
See for instance blktests/src/sg/syzkaller1.c
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs
jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N�rnberg
GF: Felix Imend�rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N�rnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-10 12:28 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-10 12:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
@ 2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-16 12:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 18:16 ` Omar Sandoval
1 sibling, 2 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-16 11:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Thumshirn; +Cc: Tetsuo Handa, Jan Kara, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Wed 10-10-18 14:28:09, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > > protecting the loop device.
> > > >
> > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> > >
> > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
> >
> > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
>
> Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
> syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
So I took a stab at this. But I hit two issues:
1) For the reproducer triggering the lockdep warning, you need a 32-bit
binary (so that it uses compat_ioctl). I don't think we want to introduce
32-bit devel environment dependency to blktests. With 64-bits, the problem
is also there but someone noticed and silenced lockdep (with a reason that
I consider is incorrect)... I think the test is still worth it though as
I'll remove the lockdep-fooling code in my patches and thus new breakage
will be noticed.
2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in
my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot
with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful
that test is. Any opinions?
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
@ 2018-10-16 12:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-16 18:16 ` Omar Sandoval
1 sibling, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Thumshirn @ 2018-10-16 12:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Tetsuo Handa, Jens Axboe, linux-block, omar Sandoval
On 16/10/18 13:36, Jan Kara wrote:
[...]
> 2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in
> my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot
> with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful
> that test is. Any opinions?
Personally I think a test that has varying outcomes depending on how
often you run it (just to hit the race) isn't really suitable for a
suite like blktests.
But that's my personal opinion only, Omar what's your opinion here?
--
Johannes Thumshirn SUSE Labs
jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-16 11:36 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-16 12:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
@ 2018-10-16 18:16 ` Omar Sandoval
2018-10-17 9:47 ` Jan Kara
1 sibling, 1 reply; 24+ messages in thread
From: Omar Sandoval @ 2018-10-16 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: Johannes Thumshirn, Tetsuo Handa, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:36:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 10-10-18 14:28:09, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > > > protecting the loop device.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> > > >
> > > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
> > >
> > > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> > > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
> >
> > Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
> > syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
>
> So I took a stab at this. But I hit two issues:
>
> 1) For the reproducer triggering the lockdep warning, you need a 32-bit
> binary (so that it uses compat_ioctl). I don't think we want to introduce
> 32-bit devel environment dependency to blktests. With 64-bits, the problem
> is also there but someone noticed and silenced lockdep (with a reason that
> I consider is incorrect)... I think the test is still worth it though as
> I'll remove the lockdep-fooling code in my patches and thus new breakage
> will be noticed.
Agreed, even if it doesn't trigger lockdep now, it's a good regression
test.
> 2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in
> my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot
> with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful
> that test is. Any opinions?
I'd say we should add it anyways. If anything, it's a smoke test for
changing fds on a loop device. You could add a note that the race it's
testing for is very narrow.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/15 v2] loop: Fix oops and possible deadlocks
2018-10-16 18:16 ` Omar Sandoval
@ 2018-10-17 9:47 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 24+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2018-10-17 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Omar Sandoval
Cc: Jan Kara, Johannes Thumshirn, Tetsuo Handa, Jens Axboe, linux-block
On Tue 16-10-18 11:16:22, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 01:36:54PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 10-10-18 14:28:09, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 10-10-18 13:42:27, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 07:19:00PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> > > > > On 2018/10/10 19:04, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this patch series fixes oops and possible deadlocks as reported by syzbot [1]
> > > > > > [2]. The second patch in the series (from Tetsuo) fixes the oops, the remaining
> > > > > > patches are cleaning up the locking in the loop driver so that we can in the
> > > > > > end reasonably easily switch to rereading partitions without holding mutex
> > > > > > protecting the loop device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have lightly tested the patches by creating, deleting, and modifying loop
> > > > > > devices but if there's some more comprehensive loopback device testsuite, I
> > > > > > can try running it. Review is welcome!
> > > > >
> > > > > Testing on linux-next by syzbot will be the most comprehensive. ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Apart from that blktests has a loop category and I think it could also be
> > > > worthwhile to add the C reproducer from syzkaller to blktests.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I did run loop tests now and they ran fine. I can try converting the
> > > syzbot reproducers into something legible but it will take a while.
> >
> > So I took a stab at this. But I hit two issues:
> >
> > 1) For the reproducer triggering the lockdep warning, you need a 32-bit
> > binary (so that it uses compat_ioctl). I don't think we want to introduce
> > 32-bit devel environment dependency to blktests. With 64-bits, the problem
> > is also there but someone noticed and silenced lockdep (with a reason that
> > I consider is incorrect)... I think the test is still worth it though as
> > I'll remove the lockdep-fooling code in my patches and thus new breakage
> > will be noticed.
>
> Agreed, even if it doesn't trigger lockdep now, it's a good regression
> test.
>
> > 2) For the oops (use-after-free) issue I was not able to reproduce that in
> > my test KVM in couple hours. The race window is rather narrow and syzbot
> > with KASAN and everything hit it only 11 times. So I'm not sure how useful
> > that test is. Any opinions?
>
> I'd say we should add it anyways. If anything, it's a smoke test for
> changing fds on a loop device. You could add a note that the race it's
> testing for is very narrow.
OK, I'll post the patches later today.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 24+ messages in thread