mirror of
https://github.com/edk2-porting/linux-next.git
synced 2024-12-19 18:53:52 +08:00
block, bfq: deschedule empty bfq_queues not referred by any process
Since commit3726112ec7
("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:3726112ec7
("block, bfq: re-schedule empty queues if they deserve I/O plugging") Reported-by: Chris Evich <cevich@redhat.com> Reported-by: Patrick Dung <patdung100@gmail.com> Reported-by: Thorsten Schubert <tschubert@bafh.org> Tested-by: Thorsten Schubert <tschubert@bafh.org> Tested-by: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@natalenko.name> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5e559561a8
commit
478de3380c
@ -2713,6 +2713,28 @@ static void bfq_bfqq_save_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
static
|
||||
void bfq_release_process_ref(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
|
||||
{
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* To prevent bfqq's service guarantees from being violated,
|
||||
* bfqq may be left busy, i.e., queued for service, even if
|
||||
* empty (see comments in __bfq_bfqq_expire() for
|
||||
* details). But, if no process will send requests to bfqq any
|
||||
* longer, then there is no point in keeping bfqq queued for
|
||||
* service. In addition, keeping bfqq queued for service, but
|
||||
* with no process ref any longer, may have caused bfqq to be
|
||||
* freed when dequeued from service. But this is assumed to
|
||||
* never happen.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
if (bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq) && RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list) &&
|
||||
bfqq != bfqd->in_service_queue)
|
||||
bfq_del_bfqq_busy(bfqd, bfqq, false);
|
||||
|
||||
bfq_put_queue(bfqq);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void
|
||||
bfq_merge_bfqqs(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_io_cq *bic,
|
||||
struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq)
|
||||
@ -2783,8 +2805,7 @@ bfq_merge_bfqqs(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_io_cq *bic,
|
||||
*/
|
||||
new_bfqq->pid = -1;
|
||||
bfqq->bic = NULL;
|
||||
/* release process reference to bfqq */
|
||||
bfq_put_queue(bfqq);
|
||||
bfq_release_process_ref(bfqd, bfqq);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static bool bfq_allow_bio_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
|
||||
@ -4899,7 +4920,7 @@ static void bfq_exit_bfqq(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
|
||||
|
||||
bfq_put_cooperator(bfqq);
|
||||
|
||||
bfq_put_queue(bfqq); /* release process reference */
|
||||
bfq_release_process_ref(bfqd, bfqq);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void bfq_exit_icq_bfqq(struct bfq_io_cq *bic, bool is_sync)
|
||||
@ -5001,8 +5022,7 @@ static void bfq_check_ioprio_change(struct bfq_io_cq *bic, struct bio *bio)
|
||||
|
||||
bfqq = bic_to_bfqq(bic, false);
|
||||
if (bfqq) {
|
||||
/* release process reference on this queue */
|
||||
bfq_put_queue(bfqq);
|
||||
bfq_release_process_ref(bfqd, bfqq);
|
||||
bfqq = bfq_get_queue(bfqd, bio, BLK_RW_ASYNC, bic);
|
||||
bic_set_bfqq(bic, bfqq, false);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@ -5963,7 +5983,7 @@ bfq_split_bfqq(struct bfq_io_cq *bic, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
|
||||
|
||||
bfq_put_cooperator(bfqq);
|
||||
|
||||
bfq_put_queue(bfqq);
|
||||
bfq_release_process_ref(bfqq->bfqd, bfqq);
|
||||
return NULL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user