Re: [v3] nbd: fix potential NULL pointer fault in nbd_genl_disconnect

[Sun Ke <sunke32@huawei.com>]

在 2020/2/12 10:00, sunke (E) 写道:
> 
> 
> 在 2020/2/12 0:39, Mike Christie 写道:
>> On 02/10/2020 10:12 PM, sunke (E) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2020/2/11 1:05, Mike Christie 写道:
>>>> On 02/10/2020 01:32 AM, Sun Ke wrote:
>>>>> Open /dev/nbdX first, the config_refs will be 1 and
>>>>> the pointers in nbd_device are still null. Disconnect
>>>>> /dev/nbdX, then reference a null recv_workq. The
>>>>> protection by config_refs in nbd_genl_disconnect is useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix it, just add a check for a non null task_recv in
>>>>> nbd_genl_disconnect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sun Ke <sunke32@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v1 -> v2:
>>>>> Add an omitted mutex_unlock.
>>>>>
>>>>> v2 -> v3:
>>>>> Add nbd->config_lock, suggested by Josef.
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/block/nbd.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/nbd.c b/drivers/block/nbd.c
>>>>> index b4607dd96185..870b3fd0c101 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/block/nbd.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
>>>>> @@ -2008,12 +2008,20 @@ static int nbd_genl_disconnect(struct sk_buff
>>>>> *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>>>>>                   index);
>>>>>            return -EINVAL;
>>>>>        }
>>>>> +    mutex_lock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>>>>        if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&nbd->refs)) {
>>>>> +        mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>>>>            mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>>>>>            printk(KERN_ERR "nbd: device at index %d is going down\n",
>>>>>                   index);
>>>>>            return -EINVAL;
>>>>>        }
>>>>> +    if (!nbd->recv_workq) {
>>>>> +        mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>>>> +        mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>>>>> +        return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +    }
>>>>> +    mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>>>>        mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>>>>>        if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&nbd->config_refs)) {
>>>>>            nbd_put(nbd);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With my other patch then we will not need this right? It handles your
>>>> case by just being integrated with the existing checks in:
>>>>
>>>> nbd_disconnect_and_put->nbd_clear_sock->sock_shutdown
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> static void sock_shutdown(struct nbd_device *nbd)
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>           if (config->num_connections == 0)
>>>>                   return;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> num_connections is zero for your case since we never did a
>>>> nbd_genl_disconnect so we would return here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>> Hi Mike
>>>
>>> Your point is not right totally.
>>>
>>> Yes, config->num_connections is 0 and will return in sock_shutdown. Then
>>> it will back to nbd_disconnect_and_put and do flush_workqueue
>>> (nbd->recv_workq).
>>>
>>> nbd_disconnect_and_put
>>>      ->nbd_clear_sock
>>>          ->sock_shutdown
>>>      ->flush_workqueue
>>>
>>
>> My patch removed that extra flush_workqueue in nbd_disconnect_and_put.
>>
>> The idea of the patch was to move the flush calls to when we do
>> sock_shutdown in the config (connect, disconnect, clear sock) code
>> paths, because that is the time we know we will need to kill the recv
>> workers and wait for them to complete so we know they are not still
>> running when userspace does a new config operation.
>>
> Yes, I see.
> 

Hi Mike

Have you sent your patch?