It can happen that the parent of a bfqq changes between the moment we decide two queues are worth to merge (and set bic->stable_merge_bfqq) and the moment bfq_setup_merge() is called. This can happen e.g. because the process submitted IO for a different cgroup and thus bfqq got reparented. It can even happen that the bfqq we are merging with has parent cgroup that is already offline and going to be destroyed in which case the merge can lead to use-after-free issues such as:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800693c0c0 by task runc:[2:INIT]/10544
CPU: 0 PID: 10544 Comm: runc:[2:INIT] Tainted: G E 5.15.2-0.g5fb85fd-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed (unreleased) f1f3b891c72369aebecd2e43e4641a6358867c70 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: <IRQ> dump_stack_lvl+0x46/0x5a print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x140 ? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x11b ? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 ? update_curr+0x32f/0x5d0 bfq_deactivate_entity+0xa0/0x1d0 bfq_del_bfqq_busy+0x28a/0x420 ? resched_curr+0x116/0x1d0 ? bfq_requeue_bfqq+0x70/0x70 ? check_preempt_wakeup+0x52b/0xbc0 __bfq_bfqq_expire+0x1a2/0x270 bfq_bfqq_expire+0xd16/0x2160 ? try_to_wake_up+0x4ee/0x1260 ? bfq_end_wr_async_queues+0xe0/0xe0 ? _raw_write_unlock_bh+0x60/0x60 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x81/0xe0 bfq_idle_slice_timer+0x109/0x280 ? bfq_dispatch_request+0x4870/0x4870 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x37d/0x700 ? enqueue_hrtimer+0x1b0/0x1b0 ? kvm_clock_get_cycles+0xd/0x10 ? ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x6f/0x280 hrtimer_interrupt+0x2c8/0x740
Fix the problem by checking that the parent of the two bfqqs we are merging in bfq_setup_merge() is the same.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20211125172809.GC19572@quack2.suse.cz/ CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 430a67f9d616 ("block, bfq: merge bursts of newly-created queues") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz --- block/bfq-iosched.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 056399185c2f..0da47f2ca781 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -2638,6 +2638,14 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq) if (process_refs == 0 || new_process_refs == 0) return NULL;
+ /* + * Make sure merged queues belong to the same parent. Parents could + * have changed since the time we decided the two queues are suitable + * for merging. + */ + if (new_bfqq->entity.parent != bfqq->entity.parent) + return NULL; + bfq_log_bfqq(bfqq->bfqd, bfqq, "scheduling merge with queue %d", new_bfqq->pid);
在 2021/12/24 1:31, Jan Kara 写道:
It can happen that the parent of a bfqq changes between the moment we decide two queues are worth to merge (and set bic->stable_merge_bfqq) and the moment bfq_setup_merge() is called. This can happen e.g. because the process submitted IO for a different cgroup and thus bfqq got reparented. It can even happen that the bfqq we are merging with has parent cgroup that is already offline and going to be destroyed in which case the merge can lead to use-after-free issues such as:
BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 Read of size 8 at addr ffff88800693c0c0 by task runc:[2:INIT]/10544
CPU: 0 PID: 10544 Comm: runc:[2:INIT] Tainted: G E 5.15.2-0.g5fb85fd-default #1 openSUSE Tumbleweed (unreleased) f1f3b891c72369aebecd2e43e4641a6358867c70 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace:
<IRQ> dump_stack_lvl+0x46/0x5a print_address_description.constprop.0+0x1f/0x140 ? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 kasan_report.cold+0x7f/0x11b ? __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 __bfq_deactivate_entity+0x9cb/0xa50 ? update_curr+0x32f/0x5d0 bfq_deactivate_entity+0xa0/0x1d0 bfq_del_bfqq_busy+0x28a/0x420 ? resched_curr+0x116/0x1d0 ? bfq_requeue_bfqq+0x70/0x70 ? check_preempt_wakeup+0x52b/0xbc0 __bfq_bfqq_expire+0x1a2/0x270 bfq_bfqq_expire+0xd16/0x2160 ? try_to_wake_up+0x4ee/0x1260 ? bfq_end_wr_async_queues+0xe0/0xe0 ? _raw_write_unlock_bh+0x60/0x60 ? _raw_spin_lock_irq+0x81/0xe0 bfq_idle_slice_timer+0x109/0x280 ? bfq_dispatch_request+0x4870/0x4870 __hrtimer_run_queues+0x37d/0x700 ? enqueue_hrtimer+0x1b0/0x1b0 ? kvm_clock_get_cycles+0xd/0x10 ? ktime_get_update_offsets_now+0x6f/0x280 hrtimer_interrupt+0x2c8/0x740
Fix the problem by checking that the parent of the two bfqqs we are merging in bfq_setup_merge() is the same.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20211125172809.GC19572@quack2.suse.cz/ CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Fixes: 430a67f9d616 ("block, bfq: merge bursts of newly-created queues") Signed-off-by: Jan Kara jack@suse.cz
block/bfq-iosched.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 056399185c2f..0da47f2ca781 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -2638,6 +2638,14 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq) if (process_refs == 0 || new_process_refs == 0) return NULL;
- /*
* Make sure merged queues belong to the same parent. Parents could* have changed since the time we decided the two queues are suitable* for merging.*/- if (new_bfqq->entity.parent != bfqq->entity.parent)
return NULL;
Hi,
This seems unnecessary, the caller of bfq_setup_merge() aready make sure bfqq and new_bfqq are under the same bfqg. Am I missing something?
Thanks, Kuai
bfq_log_bfqq(bfqq->bfqd, bfqq, "scheduling merge with queue %d", new_bfqq->pid);
On Fri 24-12-21 09:45:02, yukuai (C) wrote:
在 2021/12/24 1:31, Jan Kara 写道:
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 056399185c2f..0da47f2ca781 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -2638,6 +2638,14 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq) if (process_refs == 0 || new_process_refs == 0) return NULL;
- /*
* Make sure merged queues belong to the same parent. Parents could* have changed since the time we decided the two queues are suitable* for merging.*/- if (new_bfqq->entity.parent != bfqq->entity.parent)
return NULL;Hi,
This seems unnecessary, the caller of bfq_setup_merge() aready make sure bfqq and new_bfqq are under the same bfqg. Am I missing something?
Not all the callers of bfq_setup_merge() check that queues belong to the same cgroup (e.g. bfq_setup_cooperator() does not seem to check).
Honza
Thanks, Kuai
bfq_log_bfqq(bfqq->bfqd, bfqq, "scheduling merge with queue %d", new_bfqq->pid);
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Jan Kara -
yukuai (C)