[PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[Adam McCoy]

Failed async writes that are requeued may not clean up a refcount
on the file, which can result in a leaked open. This scenario arises
very reliably when using persistent handles and a reconnect occurs
while writing.

cifs_writev_requeue only releases the reference if the write fails
(rc != 0). The server->ops->async_writev operation will take its own
reference, so the initial reference can always be released.

Signed-off-by: Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com>
---
 fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
index 182b864b3075..5014a82391ff 100644
--- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
+++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
@@ -2152,8 +2152,8 @@ cifs_writev_requeue(struct cifs_writedata *wdata)
 			}
 		}
 
+		kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
 		if (rc) {
-			kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
 			if (is_retryable_error(rc))
 				continue;
 			i += nr_pages;
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[Steve French]

Shyam and Pavel noticed things which didn't make sense

e.g. in cifs_writepages weare putting the reference unconditionally
but in cifs_write_from_iter we are doing the same thing.   So how was
this working before - should have resulted in a reference leak and
direct i/o shouldn't have had a chance to complete??

and wouldn't there be an underrun if a retryable error with your patch
with it getting called twice?

Jeff,
Any thoughts on this?



On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:55 AM Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com> wrote:
>
> Failed async writes that are requeued may not clean up a refcount
> on the file, which can result in a leaked open. This scenario arises
> very reliably when using persistent handles and a reconnect occurs
> while writing.
>
> cifs_writev_requeue only releases the reference if the write fails
> (rc != 0). The server->ops->async_writev operation will take its own
> reference, so the initial reference can always be released.
>
> Signed-off-by: Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> index 182b864b3075..5014a82391ff 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> @@ -2152,8 +2152,8 @@ cifs_writev_requeue(struct cifs_writedata *wdata)
>                         }
>                 }
>
> +               kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
>                 if (rc) {
> -                       kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
>                         if (is_retryable_error(rc))
>                                 continue;
>                         i += nr_pages;
> --
> 2.17.1
>


--
Thanks,

Steve

Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[Steve French]

Part of this makes sense Pavel reminded me:
      in cifs_writepages() we don't need to reference wdata because we
are leaving the function. in cifs_write_from_iter() we put all wdatas
in the list and that's why we need an extra reference there


On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Shyam and Pavel noticed things which didn't make sense
>
> e.g. in cifs_writepages weare putting the reference unconditionally
> but in cifs_write_from_iter we are doing the same thing.   So how was
> this working before - should have resulted in a reference leak and
> direct i/o shouldn't have had a chance to complete??
>
> and wouldn't there be an underrun if a retryable error with your patch
> with it getting called twice?
>
> Jeff,
> Any thoughts on this?
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:55 AM Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com> wrote:
> >
> > Failed async writes that are requeued may not clean up a refcount
> > on the file, which can result in a leaked open. This scenario arises
> > very reliably when using persistent handles and a reconnect occurs
> > while writing.
> >
> > cifs_writev_requeue only releases the reference if the write fails
> > (rc != 0). The server->ops->async_writev operation will take its own
> > reference, so the initial reference can always be released.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > index 182b864b3075..5014a82391ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > @@ -2152,8 +2152,8 @@ cifs_writev_requeue(struct cifs_writedata *wdata)
> >                         }
> >                 }
> >
> > +               kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
> >                 if (rc) {
> > -                       kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
> >                         if (is_retryable_error(rc))
> >                                 continue;
> >                         i += nr_pages;
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
>
> Steve



-- 
Thanks,

Steve

Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[Adam McCoy]

> Part of this makes sense Pavel reminded me:
>       in cifs_writepages() we don't need to reference wdata because we
> are leaving the function. in cifs_write_from_iter() we put all wdatas
> in the list and that's why we need an extra reference there

Yes, this looks right. cifs_writev_requeue() seems to work like
cifs_writepages() in that the wdata2 reference disappears when the loop
exits. If the loop iterates a new struct is created each time.

> and wouldn't there be an underrun if a retryable error with your patch
> with it getting called twice?

There shouldn't be any difference if there is any kind of write error
(rc != 0), since the put call is just moving. The only difference
should be that the put call will happen if the write succeeds.

On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 04:04:08PM -0500, Steve French wrote:
> Part of this makes sense Pavel reminded me:
>       in cifs_writepages() we don't need to reference wdata because we
> are leaving the function. in cifs_write_from_iter() we put all wdatas
> in the list and that's why we need an extra reference there
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Shyam and Pavel noticed things which didn't make sense
> >
> > e.g. in cifs_writepages weare putting the reference unconditionally
> > but in cifs_write_from_iter we are doing the same thing.   So how was
> > this working before - should have resulted in a reference leak and
> > direct i/o shouldn't have had a chance to complete??
> >
> > and wouldn't there be an underrun if a retryable error with your patch
> > with it getting called twice?
> >
> > Jeff,
> > Any thoughts on this?
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 6:55 AM Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Failed async writes that are requeued may not clean up a refcount
> > > on the file, which can result in a leaked open. This scenario arises
> > > very reliably when using persistent handles and a reconnect occurs
> > > while writing.
> > >
> > > cifs_writev_requeue only releases the reference if the write fails
> > > (rc != 0). The server->ops->async_writev operation will take its own
> > > reference, so the initial reference can always be released.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/cifs/cifssmb.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > > index 182b864b3075..5014a82391ff 100644
> > > --- a/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > > +++ b/fs/cifs/cifssmb.c
> > > @@ -2152,8 +2152,8 @@ cifs_writev_requeue(struct cifs_writedata *wdata)
> > >                         }
> > >                 }
> > >
> > > +               kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
> > >                 if (rc) {
> > > -                       kref_put(&wdata2->refcount, cifs_writedata_release);
> > >                         if (is_retryable_error(rc))
> > >                                 continue;
> > >                         i += nr_pages;
> > > --
> > > 2.17.1
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Steve
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve

Re: [PATCH] cifs: fix leaked reference on requeued write

[Pavel Shilovsky]

ср, 13 мая 2020 г. в 18:18, Adam McCoy <adam@forsedomani.com>:
>
> > Part of this makes sense Pavel reminded me:
> >       in cifs_writepages() we don't need to reference wdata because we
> > are leaving the function. in cifs_write_from_iter() we put all wdatas
> > in the list and that's why we need an extra reference there
>
> Yes, this looks right. cifs_writev_requeue() seems to work like
> cifs_writepages() in that the wdata2 reference disappears when the loop
> exits. If the loop iterates a new struct is created each time.
>
> > and wouldn't there be an underrun if a retryable error with your patch
> > with it getting called twice?
>
> There shouldn't be any difference if there is any kind of write error
> (rc != 0), since the put call is just moving. The only difference
> should be that the put call will happen if the write succeeds.
>

Thanks for the patch! Good catch!

Reviewed-by: Pavel Shilovsky <pshilov@microsoft.com>

This is the old code and the problem is important to fix, so, stable
tag is needed.

--
Best regards,
Pavel Shilovsky