Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] keys: concurrent key_garbage_collector() via schedule_work() in key_put()
--
commit 49fec25be24d41f55255824b44e92e9f57128440
Author: Eduard Zateev <
hacker...@gmail.com>
keys: use long workqueue for garbage collection
This commit switches the key garbage collector work item (key_gc_work) in
security/keys/gc.c from system_percpu_wq to system_long_wq because key
garbage collection can block waiting for RCU grace periods.
Link:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c15de43f1e7fffbb7b9b
> diff --git a/security/keys/gc.c b/security/keys/gc.c
> index eda445f815d47..b174b8c511b4b 100644
> --- a/security/keys/gc.c
> +++ b/security/keys/gc.c
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ unsigned key_gc_delay = 5 * 60;
> * Reaper for unused keys.
> */
> static void key_garbage_collector(struct work_struct *work);
> +/* Key GC may wait for RCU grace periods, so queue it on system_long_wq. */
> DECLARE_WORK(key_gc_work, key_garbage_collector);
>
> /*
> @@ -57,7 +58,7 @@ void key_schedule_gc(time64_t gc_at)
>
> if (gc_at <= now || test_bit(KEY_GC_REAP_KEYTYPE, &key_gc_flags)) {
> kdebug("IMMEDIATE");
> - schedule_work(&key_gc_work);
> + queue_work(system_long_wq, &key_gc_work);
[Severity: Critical]
Does this allow key_garbage_collector() to run concurrently with itself across
two CPUs because key_put() still queues key_gc_work on system_percpu_wq?
While this patch updates the four schedule_work(&key_gc_work) call sites in
security/keys/gc.c to use system_long_wq, key_put() in security/keys/key.c
still calls schedule_work(&key_gc_work):
security/keys/key.c:key_put() {
if (key) {
key_check(key);
if (refcount_dec_and_test(&key->usage)) {
/* Mark key as safe for GC after key->user done. */
clear_bit_unlock(KEY_FLAG_USER_ALIVE, &key->flags);
schedule_work(&key_gc_work);
}
}
}
First, since key_put() is the path that clears KEY_FLAG_USER_ALIVE to trigger
reaping of unreferenced keys and the resulting synchronize_rcu() call, normal
system_percpu_wq workers will still execute key_garbage_collector() and block
on RCU grace periods.
Second, in __queue_work(), cross-CPU non-reentrancy for a work_struct that is
already executing relies on matching the target workqueue against the running
worker's workqueue:
kernel/workqueue.c:__queue_work() {
...
last_pool = get_work_pool(work);
if (last_pool && last_pool != pool) {
worker = find_worker_executing_work(last_pool, work);
if (worker && worker->current_pwq->wq == wq) {
pwq = worker->current_pwq;\
pool = pwq->pool;
WARN_ON_ONCE(pool != last_pool);
} else {
/* meh... not running there, queue here */
raw_spin_unlock(&last_pool->lock);
raw_spin_lock(&pool->lock);
}
}
...
}
Once process_one_work() clears WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT and begins executing
key_garbage_collector() on one CPU under system_long_wq, a concurrent
key_put() -> schedule_work(&key_gc_work) on another CPU passes wq ==
system_percpu_wq (or vice versa). Because worker->current_pwq->wq == wq is
false, __queue_work() queues key_gc_work on the second CPU's pool and runs a
second instance of key_garbage_collector() in parallel while the first is
sleeping in synchronize_rcu(), cond_resched(), or down_write(&key->sem).
key_garbage_collector() assumes only a single instance can run at a time:
security/keys/gc.c:key_garbage_collector() {
static LIST_HEAD(graveyard);
static u8 gc_state; /* Internal persistent state */
...
/* As only this function is permitted to remove things from the key
* serial tree, if cursor is non-NULL then it will always point to a
* valid node in the tree - even if lock got dropped.
*/
spin_lock(&key_serial_lock);
cursor = rb_first(&key_serial_tree);
...
}
Can concurrent execution of key_garbage_collector() corrupt the static
graveyard list and gc_state, free keys in key_gc_unused_keys() before the
other worker's synchronize_rcu() completes, or rb_erase() and free the key
pointed to by the other worker's cursor while key_serial_lock is dropped?
Should key_put() in security/keys/key.c also be updated to call
queue_work(system_long_wq, &key_gc_work)?
--
Sashiko AI review ·
https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261024042944.52...@gmail.com?part=1