lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: fix potential uaf for 'queue_hw_ctx'
From
Date
在 2022/02/24 10:15, Ming Lei 写道:
>> Hi, Ming
>>
>> If blk_mq_quiesce_queue() is called from __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues()
>> first, and then swithing elevator to none won't trigger the problem.
>> However, what if blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() from switching elevator
>> decrease quiesce_depth to 0 first, and then blk_mq_quiesce_queue() is
>> called from __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues(), it seems to me such
>> concurrent scenarios still exist.
>
> No, the scenario won't exist, once blk_mq_quiesce_queue() returns, it is
> guaranteed that:
>
> - in-progress run queue is drained
> - no new run queue can be started

I understand that... What I mean about the concurrent scenario is that
reading queue_hw_ctx in blk_mq_run_hw_queues(), not the actual run
queue blk_mq_run_hw_queue():

t1 t2
elevator_switch
blk_mq_quiesce_queue -> quiesce_depth = 1
blk_mq_unquiesce_queue-> quiesce_depth = 0
blk_mq_run_hw_queues
__blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues
blk_mq_quiesce_queue
queue_for_each_hw_ctx
-> quiesce_queue can't prevent reading queue_hw_ctx
blk_mq_run_hw_queue
//need_run is always false, nothing to do

Am I missing something about blk_mq_quiesce_queue ?

Thanks,
Kuai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-24 03:45    [W:0.052 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site