On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:20 PM, Tetsuo Handa
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> This looks very similar to "KASAN: use-after-free Read in fuse_kill_sb_blk":
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/4C4oiBX8vZ0/0NTQRcUYBgAJ
>>
>> which you fixed with "fuse: don't keep dead fuse_conn at fuse_fill_super().":
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syzkaller-bugs/4C4oiBX8vZ0/W6pi8NdbBgAJ
>>
>> However, here we have use-after-free in fuse_kill_sb_anon instead of
>> use_kill_sb_blk. Do you think your patch will fix this as well?
>
> Yes, for fuse_kill_sb_anon() and fuse_kill_sb_blk() are symmetrical.
> I'm waiting for Miklos Szeredi to apply that patch.
Thanks for confirming. Let's do:
#syz fix: fuse: don't keep dead fuse_conn at fuse_fill_super().
> static inline struct fuse_conn *get_fuse_conn_super(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> return sb->s_fs_info;
> }
>
> static struct file_system_type fuse_fs_type = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> .name = "fuse",
> .fs_flags = FS_HAS_SUBTYPE,
> .mount = fuse_mount,
> .kill_sb = fuse_kill_sb_anon,
> };
>
> static struct file_system_type fuseblk_fs_type = {
> .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> .name = "fuseblk",
> .mount = fuse_mount_blk,
> .kill_sb = fuse_kill_sb_blk,
> .fs_flags = FS_REQUIRES_DEV | FS_HAS_SUBTYPE,
> };
>
> static void fuse_kill_sb_anon(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn_super(sb);
>
> if (fc) {
> down_write(&fc->killsb);
> fc->sb = NULL;
> up_write(&fc->killsb);
> }
>
> kill_anon_super(sb);
> }
>
> static void fuse_kill_sb_blk(struct super_block *sb)
> {
> struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn_super(sb);
>
> if (fc) {
> down_write(&fc->killsb);
> fc->sb = NULL;
> up_write(&fc->killsb);
> }
>
> kill_block_super(sb);
> }
