Re: [PATCH] mm/backing-dev.c: fix crash when USB/SCSI device isdetached

[Wu Fengguang]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 03:58:43PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 14:19, Chanho Min <chanho0207@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 12:23:44PM +0900, Chanho Min wrote:
> >>> >On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 06:38:21PM +0900,wrote:
> >>> >> from Chanho Min <chanho.min@xxxxxxx>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> System may crash in backing-dev.c when removal SCSI device is detached.
> >>> >> bdi task is killed by bdi_unregister()/'khubd', but task's point
> >>remains.
> >>> >> Shortly afterward, If 'wb->wakeup_timer' is expired before
> >>> >> del_timer()/bdi_forker_thread,
> >>> >> wakeup_timer_fn() may wake up the dead thread which cause the crash.
> >>> >> 'bdi->wb.task' should be NULL as this patch.
> >>
> >>I noticed a related fix is merged recently, does your test kernel
> >>contain this commit?
> >>
> > No, I will try to reproduce with this patch.
> > But, bdi_destroy is not called during write-access. Same result is expected.
> 
> I agree. 7a401a972df8e184b3d1a3fc958c0a4ddee8d312 only addressed the
> problem of the bdi being destroyed with an active timer, but there are
> other races that could happen before that.
> 
> >>This patch makes no guarantee wakeup_timer_fn() will see NULL
> >>bdi->wb.task before the task is stopped, so there is still race
> >>conditions. And still, the complete fix would be to prevent
> >>wakeup_timer_fn() from being called at all.
> >
> > If wakeup_timer_fn() see NULL bdi->wb.task, wakeup_timer_fn regards
> > task as killed
> > and wake up forker thread instead of the defined thread.
> > Is this intended behavior of the bdi?
> 
> This appears to be the intended behaviour before, but certainly not
> after the bdi is unregistered, since anyway the forker thread will not
> find the bdi on the list.  In fact, if tracing is enabled the kernel
> crashes because dev_name() is called on a NULL bdi->dev from the
> wake_forker_thread tracepoint.

Right.

> The following patch should address these issues:
> 
> 8<---------------------------
> >From 271f92d34b661d701eaad9b262423de5dba1cc11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Rabin Vincent <rabin@xxxxxx>
> Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:30:40 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] backing-dev: fix wakeup timer races with bdi_unregister()
> 
> While 7a401a972df8e18 ("backing-dev: ensure wakeup_timer is deleted")
> addressed the problem of the bdi being freed with a queued wakeup
> timer, there are other races that could happen if the wakeup timer
> expires after/during bdi_unregister(), before bdi_destroy() is called.
> 
> wakeup_timer_fn() could attempt to wakeup a task which has already has
> been freed, or could access a NULL bdi->dev via the wake_forker_thread
> tracepoint.
> 
> Reported-by: Chanho Min <chanho.min@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Rabin Vincent <rabin@xxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>

>  mm/backing-dev.c |   17 +++++++++++++----
>  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index 71034f4..a39ad70 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ static void wakeup_timer_fn(unsigned long data)
>  	if (bdi->wb.task) {
>  		trace_writeback_wake_thread(bdi);
>  		wake_up_process(bdi->wb.task);
> -	} else {
> +	} else if (bdi->dev) {
>  		/*
>  		 * When bdi tasks are inactive for long time, they are killed.
>  		 * In this case we have to wake-up the forker thread which
> @@ -584,6 +584,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(bdi_register_dev);
>   */
>  static void bdi_wb_shutdown(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>  {
> +	struct task_struct *task = NULL;

NULL not necessary?

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/