Re: possible deadlock in mon_bin_vma_fault
From: Alan Stern
Date: Wed Nov 20 2019 - 13:47:04 EST
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:14:05 -0500 (EST)
> Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > As it happens, I spent a little time investigating this bug report just
> > yesterday. It seems to me that the easiest fix would be to disallow
> > resizing the buffer while it is mapped by any users. (Besides,
> > allowing that seems like a bad idea in any case.)
> >
> > Pete, does that seem reasonable to you?
>
> Yes, it does seem reasonable.
>
> I think I understand it now. My fallacy was thinking that since everything
> is nailed down as long as fetch_lock is held, it was okay to grab whatever
> page from our pagemap. What happens later is an attempt to get pages of the
> new buffer while looking at them through the old VMA, in mon_bin_vma_fault.
>
> It seems to me that the use counter, mmap_active, is correct and sufficient
> to check in the ioctl.
>
> -- Pete
>
> P.S. One thing that vaguely bothers me on this is that the bot
> bisected to the commit that clearly fixed worse issues.
>
> P.P.S. Like this?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/mon/mon_bin.c b/drivers/usb/mon/mon_bin.c
> index ac2b4fcc265f..e27d99606adb 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/mon/mon_bin.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/mon/mon_bin.c
> @@ -1020,6 +1020,9 @@ static long mon_bin_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg
> int size;
> struct mon_pgmap *vec;
>
> + if (rp->mmap_active)
> + return -EBUSY;
> +
> if (arg < BUFF_MIN || arg > BUFF_MAX)
> return -EINVAL;
Like that, yes, but the test has to be made while fetch_lock is held.
Otherwise there's still a race: One thread could pass the test and then
do the resize, and in between another thread could map the buffer and
incur a fault.
Incidentally, the comment for fetch_lock says that it protects b_read
and b_out, but mon_bin_vma_fault doesn't use either of those fields.
Alan Stern