linux-stable.git/fs/fuse/dev.c, branch v4.19.78

fuse: fix deadlock with aio poll and fuse_iqueue::waitq.lock

2019-10-05T11:10:13+00:00

[ Upstream commit 76e43c8ccaa35c30d5df853013561145a0f750a5 ]

When IOCB_CMD_POLL is used on the FUSE device, aio_poll() disables IRQs
and takes kioctx::ctx_lock, then fuse_iqueue::waitq.lock.

This may have to wait for fuse_iqueue::waitq.lock to be released by one
of many places that take it with IRQs enabled.  Since the IRQ handler
may take kioctx::ctx_lock, lockdep reports that a deadlock is possible.

Fix it by protecting the state of struct fuse_iqueue with a separate
spinlock, and only accessing fuse_iqueue::waitq using the versions of
the waitqueue functions which do IRQ-safe locking internally.

Reproducer:

	#include 
	#include 
	#include 
	#include 
	#include 
	#include 
	#include 

	int main()
	{
		char opts[128];
		int fd = open("/dev/fuse", O_RDWR);
		aio_context_t ctx = 0;
		struct iocb cb = { .aio_lio_opcode = IOCB_CMD_POLL, .aio_fildes = fd };
		struct iocb *cbp = &cb;

		sprintf(opts, "fd=%d,rootmode=040000,user_id=0,group_id=0", fd);
		mkdir("mnt", 0700);
		mount("foo",  "mnt", "fuse", 0, opts);
		syscall(__NR_io_setup, 1, &ctx);
		syscall(__NR_io_submit, ctx, 1, &cbp);
	}

Beginning of lockdep output:

	=====================================================
	WARNING: SOFTIRQ-safe -> SOFTIRQ-unsafe lock order detected
	5.3.0-rc5 #9 Not tainted
	-----------------------------------------------------
	syz_fuse/135 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE0:SE1] is trying to acquire:
	000000003590ceda (&fiq->waitq){+.+.}, at: spin_lock include/linux/spinlock.h:338 [inline]
	000000003590ceda (&fiq->waitq){+.+.}, at: aio_poll fs/aio.c:1751 [inline]
	000000003590ceda (&fiq->waitq){+.+.}, at: __io_submit_one.constprop.0+0x203/0x5b0 fs/aio.c:1825

	and this task is already holding:
	0000000075037284 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: spin_lock_irq include/linux/spinlock.h:363 [inline]
	0000000075037284 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: aio_poll fs/aio.c:1749 [inline]
	0000000075037284 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}, at: __io_submit_one.constprop.0+0x1f4/0x5b0 fs/aio.c:1825
	which would create a new lock dependency:
	 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.} -> (&fiq->waitq){+.+.}

	but this new dependency connects a SOFTIRQ-irq-safe lock:
	 (&(&ctx->ctx_lock)->rlock){..-.}

	[...]

Reported-by: syzbot+af05535bb79520f95431@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+d86c4426a01f60feddc7@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: bfe4037e722e ("aio: implement IOCB_CMD_POLL")
Cc:  # v4.19+
Cc: Christoph Hellwig 
Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers 
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: retrieve: cap requested size to negotiated max_write

2019-06-15T09:54:07+00:00

[ Upstream commit 7640682e67b33cab8628729afec8ca92b851394f ]

FUSE filesystem server and kernel client negotiate during initialization
phase, what should be the maximum write size the client will ever issue.
Correspondingly the filesystem server then queues sys_read calls to read
requests with buffer capacity large enough to carry request header + that
max_write bytes. A filesystem server is free to set its max_write in
anywhere in the range between [1*page, fc->max_pages*page]. In particular
go-fuse[2] sets max_write by default as 64K, wheres default fc->max_pages
corresponds to 128K. Libfuse also allows users to configure max_write, but
by default presets it to possible maximum.

If max_write is < fc->max_pages*page, and in NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler we
allow to retrieve more than max_write bytes, corresponding prepared
NOTIFY_REPLY will be thrown away by fuse_dev_do_read, because the
filesystem server, in full correspondence with server/client contract, will
be only queuing sys_read with ~max_write buffer capacity, and
fuse_dev_do_read throws away requests that cannot fit into server request
buffer. In turn the filesystem server could get stuck waiting indefinitely
for NOTIFY_REPLY since NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler returned OK which is
understood by clients as that NOTIFY_REPLY was queued and will be sent
back.

Cap requested size to negotiate max_write to avoid the problem.  This
aligns with the way NOTIFY_RETRIEVE handler works, which already
unconditionally caps requested retrieve size to fuse_conn->max_pages.  This
way it should not hurt NOTIFY_RETRIEVE semantic if we return less data than
was originally requested.

Please see [1] for context where the problem of stuck filesystem was hit
for real, how the situation was traced and for more involving patch that
did not make it into the tree.

[1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=155057023600853&w=2
[2] https://github.com/hanwen/go-fuse

Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov 
Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys 
Cc: Jakob Unterwurzacher 
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin

fs: prevent page refcount overflow in pipe_buf_get

2019-05-04T07:20:11+00:00

commit 15fab63e1e57be9fdb5eec1bbc5916e9825e9acb upstream.

Change pipe_buf_get() to return a bool indicating whether it succeeded
in raising the refcount of the page (if the thing in the pipe is a page).
This removes another mechanism for overflowing the page refcount.  All
callers converted to handle a failure.

Reported-by: Jann Horn 
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox 
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: handle zero sized retrieve correctly

2019-02-12T18:47:24+00:00

commit 97e1532ef81acb31c30f9e75bf00306c33a77812 upstream.

Dereferencing req->page_descs[0] will Oops if req->max_pages is zero.

Reported-by: syzbot+c1e36d30ee3416289cc0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Tested-by: syzbot+c1e36d30ee3416289cc0@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Fixes: b2430d7567a3 ("fuse: add per-page descriptor  to fuse_req")
Cc:  # v3.9
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: call pipe_buf_release() under pipe lock

2019-02-12T18:47:23+00:00

commit 9509941e9c534920ccc4771ae70bd6cbbe79df1c upstream.

Some of the pipe_buf_release() handlers seem to assume that the pipe is
locked - in particular, anon_pipe_buf_release() accesses pipe->tmp_page
without taking any extra locks. From a glance through the callers of
pipe_buf_release(), it looks like FUSE is the only one that calls
pipe_buf_release() without having the pipe locked.

This bug should only lead to a memory leak, nothing terrible.

Fixes: dd3bb14f44a6 ("fuse: support splice() writing to fuse device")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jann Horn 
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: fix possibly missed wake-up after abort

2018-11-21T08:19:24+00:00

commit 2d84a2d19b6150c6dbac1e6ebad9c82e4c123772 upstream.

In current fuse_drop_waiting() implementation it's possible that
fuse_wait_aborted() will not be woken up in the unlikely case that
fuse_abort_conn() + fuse_wait_aborted() runs in between checking
fc->connected and calling atomic_dec(&fc->num_waiting).

Do the atomic_dec_and_test() unconditionally, which also provides the
necessary barrier against reordering with the fc->connected check.

The explicit smp_mb() in fuse_wait_aborted() is not actually needed, since
the spin_unlock() in fuse_abort_conn() provides the necessary RELEASE
barrier after resetting fc->connected.  However, this is not a performance
sensitive path, and adding the explicit barrier makes it easier to
document.

Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Fixes: b8f95e5d13f5 ("fuse: umount should wait for all requests")
Cc:  #v4.19
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: fix leaked notify reply

2018-11-21T08:19:24+00:00

commit 7fabaf303458fcabb694999d6fa772cc13d4e217 upstream.

fuse_request_send_notify_reply() may fail if the connection was reset for
some reason (e.g. fs was unmounted).  Don't leak request reference in this
case.  Besides leaking memory, this resulted in fc->num_waiting not being
decremented and hence fuse_wait_aborted() left in a hanging and unkillable
state.

Fixes: 2d45ba381a74 ("fuse: add retrieve request")
Fixes: b8f95e5d13f5 ("fuse: umount should wait for all requests")
Reported-and-tested-by: syzbot+6339eda9cb4ebbc4c37b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Cc:  #v2.6.36
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: set FR_SENT while locked

2018-11-21T08:19:14+00:00

commit 4c316f2f3ff315cb48efb7435621e5bfb81df96d upstream.

Otherwise fuse_dev_do_write() could come in and finish off the request, and
the set_bit(FR_SENT, ...) could trigger the WARN_ON(test_bit(FR_SENT, ...))
in request_end().

Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Reported-by: syzbot+ef054c4d3f64cd7f7cec@syzkaller.appspotmai
Fixes: 46c34a348b0a ("fuse: no fc->lock for pqueue parts")
Cc:  # v4.2
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: fix blocked_waitq wakeup

2018-11-21T08:19:14+00:00

commit 908a572b80f6e9577b45e81b3dfe2e22111286b8 upstream.

Using waitqueue_active() is racy.  Make sure we issue a wake_up()
unconditionally after storing into fc->blocked.  After that it's okay to
optimize with waitqueue_active() since the first wake up provides the
necessary barrier for all waiters, not the just the woken one.

Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Fixes: 3c18ef8117f0 ("fuse: optimize wake_up")
Cc:  # v3.10
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

fuse: Fix use-after-free in fuse_dev_do_write()

2018-11-21T08:19:14+00:00

commit d2d2d4fb1f54eff0f3faa9762d84f6446a4bc5d0 upstream.

After we found req in request_find() and released the lock,
everything may happen with the req in parallel:

cpu0                              cpu1
fuse_dev_do_write()               fuse_dev_do_write()
  req = request_find(fpq, ...)    ...
  spin_unlock(&fpq->lock)         ...
  ...                             req = request_find(fpq, oh.unique)
  ...                             spin_unlock(&fpq->lock)
  queue_interrupt(&fc->iq, req);   ...
  ...                              ...
  ...                              ...
  request_end(fc, req);
    fuse_put_request(fc, req);
  ...                              queue_interrupt(&fc->iq, req);


Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai 
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi 
Fixes: 46c34a348b0a ("fuse: no fc->lock for pqueue parts")
Cc:  # v4.2
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman