Re: [PATCH] 9p: fix crash when transaction killed

[Schspa Shi]

asmadeus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Schspa Shi wrote on Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 09:15:12PM +0800:
>> >> If the req was newly alloced(It was at a new page), refcount maybe not
>> >> 0, there will be problem in this case. It seems we can't relay on this.
>> >> 
>> >> We need to set the refcount to zero before add it to idr in p9_tag_alloc.
>> >
>> > Hmm, if it's reused then it's zero by definition, but if it's a new
>> > allocation (uninitialized) then anything goes; that lookup could find
>> > and increase it before the refcount_set, and we'd have an off by one
>> > leading to use after free. Good catch!
>> >
>> > Initializing it to zero will lead to the client busy-looping until after
>> > the refcount is properly set, which should work.
>> 
>> Why? It looks no different from the previous process here. Initializing
>> it to zero should makes no difference.
>
> I do not understand this remark.
> If this is a freed request it will be zero, because we freed the request
> as the refcount hit zero, but if it's a newly allocated request then the
> memory is uninitalized, and the lookup can get anything.

Here is my misunderstanding. I thought you meant that there would be a
loop on the client side to wait for the refcount to become a non-zero
value. Actually, there is no such loop.

>
> In that case we want refcount to be zero to have the check in
> p9_tag_lookup to not use the request until we set the refcount to 2.
>
>
>> > Setting refcount early might have us use an re-used req before the tag
>> > has been changed so that one cannot move.
>> >
>> > Could you test with just that changed if syzbot still reproduces this
>> > bug? (perhaps add a comment if you send this)
>> >
>> 
>> I have upload a new v2 change for this. But I can't easily reproduce
>> this problem.
>
> Ah, I read that v2 as you actually ran some tests with this, sorry for
> the misuderstanding.
>
> Well, it's a fix anyway, so it cannot hurt to apply...


-- 
BRs
Schspa Shi