Re: Re: [PATCH] target: Fix a double put in transport_free_session

[lyl2019]

> -----原始邮件-----
> 发件人: "Mike Christie" <michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 发送时间: 2021-03-26 01:24:58 (星期五)
> 收件人: lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 抄送: martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, target-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Nilesh Javali" <njavali@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] target: Fix a double put in transport_free_session
> 
> On 3/25/21 2:48 AM, lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> -----原始邮件-----
> >> 发件人: michael.christie@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> 发送时间: 2021-03-24 00:28:35 (星期三)
> >> 收件人: "Lv Yunlong" <lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> 抄送: linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, target-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> 主题: Re: [PATCH] target: Fix a double put in transport_free_session
> >>
> >> On 3/22/21 9:58 PM, Lv Yunlong wrote:
> >>> In transport_free_session, se_nacl is got from se_sess
> >>> with the initial reference. If se_nacl->acl_sess_list is
> >>> empty, se_nacl->dynamic_stop is set to true. Then the first
> >>> target_put_nacl(se_nacl) will drop the initial reference
> >>> and free se_nacl. Later there is a second target_put_nacl()
> >>> to put se_nacl. It may cause error in race.
> >>>> My patch sets se_nacl->dynamic_stop to false to avoid the
> >>> double put.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Lv Yunlong <lyl2019@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 4 +++-
> >>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> >>> index 5ecb9f18a53d..c266defe694f 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_transport.c
> >>> @@ -584,8 +584,10 @@ void transport_free_session(struct se_session *se_sess)
> >>>  		}
> >>>  		mutex_unlock(&se_tpg->acl_node_mutex);
> >>>  
> >>> -		if (se_nacl->dynamic_stop)
> >>> +		if (se_nacl->dynamic_stop) {
> >>>  			target_put_nacl(se_nacl);
> >>> +			se_nacl->dynamic_stop = false;
> >>> +		}
> >>>  
> >>>  		target_put_nacl(se_nacl);
> >> Could you describe the race a little more?
> >>
> >> Is the race:
> >>
> >> 1. thread1 called core_tpg_check_initiator_node_acl and found the acl.
> >> sess->se_node_acl is set to the found acl.
> >> 2. thread2 is running transport_free_session. It now grabs the acl_node_mutex
> >> and sees se_nacl->acl_sess_list is empty.
> >> 3. thread2 does the dynamic_stop=true operations in transport_free_session.
> >> 4. thread1 now calls transport_register_session now adds the sess to acl's
> >> acl_sess_list.
> >>
> >> Later when the session that thread 1 created is deleted dynamic_stop is still
> >> set, so we do an extra target_put_nacl?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure your patch will handle this race. When we delete the session thread1
> >> created dynamic_node_acl is still set, so this:
> >>
> >>                 mutex_lock(&se_tpg->acl_node_mutex);
> >>                 if (se_nacl->dynamic_node_acl &&
> >>                     !se_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_cache(se_tpg)) {
> >>                         spin_lock_irqsave(&se_nacl->nacl_sess_lock, flags);
> >>                         if (list_empty(&se_nacl->acl_sess_list))
> >>                                 se_nacl->dynamic_stop = true;
> >>
> >> can set dynamic_stop to true again and we can end up doing the extra put still.
> >>
> >> On top of the extra put we also do
> >>
> >> list_del(&se_nacl->acl_list);
> >>
> >> twice so we have to handle that as well.
> >>
> >> Is there also another bug in this code. If someone adds an acl while there is a
> >> dynamic acl in place core_tpg_add_initiator_node_acl will clear dynamic_node_acl
> >> but we leave the extra reference, so later when transport_free_session is called
> >> we will not do the extra put.
> >>
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for your answer. According the description above, i think it is a false
> > positive now.
> > 
> 
> Did you hit this bug, are you using an inspection tool, or did you find this by code
> review?
> 
> I think there was a misunderstanding. I was saying it looks like a race could happen.
> There is no protection in lio core.
> 
> I think it's hard to hit because most drivers do not allow the combo:
> 
> tpg_check_demo_mode == true
> tpg_check_demo_mode_cache = false
> 
> It looks like those settings are allowed with tcm_qla2xxx and usb, but:
> 
> usb - has a mutex around creation and removal so we can't race.
> tcm qla - I don't know this driver will enough, but I cc'd the maintainer.

This bug is detected by a static analyzer tool.

Thanks.