In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix node_cnt race between extent node destroy and writeback
f2fs_destroy_extent_node() does not set FI_NO_EXTENT before clearing
extent nodes. When called from f2fs_drop_inode() with I_SYNC set,
concurrent kworker writeback can insert new extent nodes into the same
extent tree, racing with the destroy and triggering f2fs_bug_on() in
__destroy_extent_node(). The scenario is as follows:
drop inode writeback
- iput
- f2fs_drop_inode // I_SYNC set
- f2fs_destroy_extent_node
- __destroy_extent_node
- while (node_cnt) {
write_lock(&et->lock)
__free_extent_tree
write_unlock(&et->lock)
- __writeback_single_inode
- f2fs_outplace_write_data
- f2fs_update_read_extent_cache
- __update_extent_tree_range
// FI_NO_EXTENT not set,
// insert new extent node
} // node_cnt == 0, exit while
- f2fs_bug_on(node_cnt) // node_cnt > 0
Additionally, __update_extent_tree_range() only checks FI_NO_EXTENT for
EX_READ type, leaving EX_BLOCK_AGE updates completely unprotected.
This patch set FI_NO_EXTENT under et->lock in __destroy_extent_node(),
consistent with other callers (__update_extent_tree_range and
__drop_extent_tree) and check FI_NO_EXTENT for both EX_READ and
EX_BLOCK_AGE tree.
References
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
f2fs: fix node_cnt race between extent node destroy and writeback
f2fs_destroy_extent_node() does not set FI_NO_EXTENT before clearing
extent nodes. When called from f2fs_drop_inode() with I_SYNC set,
concurrent kworker writeback can insert new extent nodes into the same
extent tree, racing with the destroy and triggering f2fs_bug_on() in
__destroy_extent_node(). The scenario is as follows:
drop inode writeback
- __destroy_extent_node
write_lock(&et->lock)
__free_extent_tree
write_unlock(&et->lock)
- __writeback_single_inode
- f2fs_outplace_write_data
- f2fs_update_read_extent_cache
- __update_extent_tree_range
// FI_NO_EXTENT not set,
// insert new extent node
} // node_cnt == 0, exit while
Additionally, __update_extent_tree_range() only checks FI_NO_EXTENT for
EX_READ type, leaving EX_BLOCK_AGE updates completely unprotected.
This patch set FI_NO_EXTENT under et->lock in __destroy_extent_node(),
consistent with other callers (__update_extent_tree_range and
__drop_extent_tree) and check FI_NO_EXTENT for both EX_READ and
EX_BLOCK_AGE tree.
References