Re: bcachefs: suspicious mm pointer in struct dio_write

[Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>]

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 09:44:21PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 9:25 PM Kent Overstreet
> <kent.overstreet@linux.dev> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 11:09:14AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 11/27/24 9:57 AM, Jann Horn wrote:
> > > > Hi!
> > > >
> > > > In fs/bcachefs/fs-io-direct.c, "struct dio_write" contains a pointer
> > > > to an mm_struct. This pointer is grabbed in bch2_direct_write()
> > > > (without any kind of refcount increment), and used in
> > > > bch2_dio_write_continue() for kthread_use_mm()/kthread_unuse_mm()
> > > > which are used to enable userspace memory access from kthread context.
> > > > I believe kthread_use_mm()/kthread_unuse_mm() require that the caller
> > > > guarantees that the MM hasn't gone through exit_mmap() yet (normally
> > > > by holding an mmget() reference).
> > > >
> > > > If we reach this codepath via io_uring, do we have a guarantee that
> > > > the mm_struct that called bch2_direct_write() is still alive and
> > > > hasn't yet gone through exit_mmap() when it is accessed from
> > > > bch2_dio_write_continue()?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know the async direct I/O codepath particularly well, so I
> > > > cc'ed the uring maintainers, who probably know this better than me.
> > >
> > > I _think_ this is fine as-is, even if it does look dubious and bcachefs
> > > arguably should grab an mm ref for this just for safety to avoid future
> > > problems. The reason is that bcachefs doesn't set FMODE_NOWAIT, which
> > > means that on the io_uring side it cannot do non-blocking issue of
> > > requests. This is slower as it always punts to an io-wq thread, which
> > > shares the same mm. Hence if the request is alive, there's always a
> > > thread with the same mm alive as well.
> > >
> > > Now if FMODE_NOWAIT was set, then the original task could exit. I'd need
> > > to dig a bit deeper to verify that would always be safe and there's not
> > > a of time today with a few days off in the US looming, so I'll defer
> > > that to next week. It certainly would be fine with an mm ref grabbed.
> >
> > Wouldn't delivery of completions be tied to an address space (not a
> > process) like it is for aio?
> 
> An io_uring instance is primarily exposed to userspace as a file
> descriptor, so AFAIK it is possible for the io_uring instance to live
> beyond when the last mmput() happens. io_uring initially only holds an
> mmgrab() reference on the MM (a comment above that explains: "This is
> just grabbed for accounting purposes"), which I think is not enough to
> make it stable enough for kthread_use_mm(); I think in io_uring, only
> the worker threads actually keep the MM fully alive (and AFAIK the
> uring worker threads can exit before the uring instance itself is torn
> down).
> 
> To receive io_uring completions, there are multiple ways, but they
> don't use a pointer from the io_uring instance to the MM to access
> userspace memory. Instead, you can have a VMA that points to the
> io_uring instance, created by calling mmap() on the io_uring fd; or
> alternatively, with IORING_SETUP_NO_MMAP, you can have io_uring grab
> references to userspace-provided pages.
> 
> On top of that, I think it might currently be possible to use the
> io_uring file descriptor from another task to submit work. (That would
> probably be fairly nonsensical, but I think the kernel does not
> currently prevent it.)

Ok, that's a wrinkle.

Jens, is it really FMODE_NOWAIT that controls whether we can hit this? A
very cursory glance leads me to suspect "no", it seems like this is a
bug if io_uring is allowed on bcachefs at all.