On 2/7/19 1:57 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Hi, Jens,
>
> Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk> writes:
>
>> +static int io_sqe_buffer_unregister(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>> +{
>> + int i, j;
>> +
>> + if (!ctx->user_bufs)
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < ctx->sq_entries; i++) {
>> + struct io_mapped_ubuf *imu = &ctx->user_bufs[i];
>> +
>> + for (j = 0; j < imu->nr_bvecs; j++)
>> + put_page(imu->bvec[j].bv_page);
>> +
>> + io_unaccount_mem(ctx->user, imu->nr_bvecs);
>> + kfree(imu->bvec);
>> + imu->nr_bvecs = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + kfree(ctx->user_bufs);
>> + ctx->user_bufs = NULL;
>> + free_uid(ctx->user);
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> + ctx->user = NULL;
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I don't think you want to do that here. If you do an
> IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS, followed by IORING_UNREGISTER_BUFFERS, and then
> follow that up with IORING_REGISTER_FILES, you'll get a null pointer
> dereference trying to bump the reference count of the (now NULL)
> ctx->user (io_uring.c:1944):
>
> [ 216.927990] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> 0000000000000000
> [ 216.935825] #PF error: [WRITE]
> [ 216.938883] PGD 5f39244067 P4D 5f39244067 PUD 5f043ca067 PMD 0
> [ 216.944803] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP
> [ 216.947949] CPU: 79 PID: 3371 Comm: io_uring_regist Not tainted
> 5.0.0-rc5.io_uring.4+ #26
> [ 216.956119] Hardware name: Intel Corporation S2600WFD/S2600WFD, BIOS
> SE5C620.86B.0D.01.0108.091420182119 09/14/2018
> [ 216.966553] RIP: 0010:__io_uring_register+0x1c2/0x7c0
> [ 216.971606] Code: 49 89 c6 48 85 c0 0f 84 9b 05 00 00 48 8b 83 20 02 00 00
> 48 8b 40 20 49 c7 46 60 60 89 1d 96 49 89 46 18 48 8b 83 18 01 00 00 <f0> ff
> 00 0f 88 1a a0 52 00 45 31 e4 66 83 7d 00 00 48 89 45 08 7e
> [ 216.990355] RSP: 0018:ffffb296087e3e70 EFLAGS: 00010286
> [ 216.995578] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff9aacbbff3800 RCX:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 217.002711] RDX: ffff9aacbbaf1ac0 RSI: 00000000ffffffff RDI:
> ffff9aacb9a8f6b0
> [ 217.009842] RBP: ffff9aacbb45e800 R08: 00000000000000c0 R09:
> ffff9a4e87c07000
> [ 217.016977] R10: 0000000000000006 R11: ffff9aac97da9b00 R12:
> 00007efdc3dbd1fc
> [ 217.024107] R13: ffff9aacbb45ec08 R14: ffff9aacb9a8f600 R15:
> ffff9aac97da9a00
> [ 217.031241] FS: 00007f01c439e500(0000) GS:ffff9aacbf7c0000(0000)
> knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 217.039326] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> [ 217.045075] CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 0000005f08d85002 CR4:
> 00000000007606e0
> [ 217.052207] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 217.059340] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7:
> 0000000000000400
> [ 217.066472] PKRU: 55555554
> [ 217.069183] Call Trace:
> [ 217.071638] __x64_sys_io_uring_register+0x91/0xb0
> [ 217.076433] do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x190
> [ 217.080110] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> [ 217.085167] RIP: 0033:0x7f01c3eb42bd
> [ 217.088743] Code: 00 c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 f3 0f 1e fa 48 89
> f8 48 89 f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d
> 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 8b 0d 9b 6b 2c 00 f7 d8 64 89 01 48
>
> I'd expect ctx->user to live as long as the io_uring context itself,
> right?
Yes, it used to just be used for the buffers, now we use it generally. I've
fixed that up, thanks Jeff!
--
Jens Axboe
