Re: [PATCH BUGFIX V2 1/1] block, bfq: deschedule empty bfq_queues not referred by any process

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/15/19 11:32 AM, Holger HoffstÃtte wrote:
> On 11/14/19 10:33 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> Since commit 3726112ec731 ("block, bfq: re-schedule empty queues if
>> they deserve I/O plugging"), to prevent the service guarantees of a
>> bfq_queue from being violated, the bfq_queue may be left busy, i.e.,
>> scheduled for service, even if empty (see comments in
>> __bfq_bfqq_expire() for details). But, if no process will send
>> requests to the bfq_queue any longer, then there is no point in
>> keeping the bfq_queue scheduled for service.
>>
>> In addition, keeping the bfq_queue scheduled for service, but with no
>> process reference any longer, may cause the bfq_queue to be freed when
>> descheduled from service. But this is assumed to never happen, and
>> causes a UAF if it happens. This, in turn, caused crashes [1, 2].
>>
>> This commit fixes this issue by descheduling an empty bfq_queue when
>> it remains with not process reference.
>>
>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1767539
>> [2] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205447
>>
>> Fixes: 3726112ec731 ("block, bfq: re-schedule empty queues if they deserve I/O plugging")
>> Reported-by: Chris Evich <cevich@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Patrick Dung <patdung100@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Reported-by: Thorsten Schubert <tschubert@xxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Thorsten Schubert <tschubert@xxxxxxxx>
>> Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Jens,
> 
> can you please also tag this for stable-5.3 before the next push?
> The original problem was found on 5.3 after all, and hoping for the
> stable-bot to pick it up automagically is a bit unreliable.

Too late for that, but we can point stable@ at it once it's merged.

-- 
Jens Axboe