Re: [PATCH v3] bcache: fix cached_dev.sb_bio use-after-free and crash

On 3/31/26 9:46 AM, Coly Li wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 09:56:18AM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2026 at 09:11:53PM +0800, [email protected] wrote:
>>> From: Mingzhe Zou <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> In our production environment, we have received multiple crash reports
>>> regarding libceph, which have caught our attention:
>>>
>>> ```
>>> [6888366.280350] Call Trace:
>>> [6888366.280452]  blk_update_request+0x14e/0x370
>>> [6888366.280561]  blk_mq_end_request+0x1a/0x130
>>> [6888366.280671]  rbd_img_handle_request+0x1a0/0x1b0 [rbd]
>>> [6888366.280792]  rbd_obj_handle_request+0x32/0x40 [rbd]
>>> [6888366.280903]  __complete_request+0x22/0x70 [libceph]
>>> [6888366.281032]  osd_dispatch+0x15e/0xb40 [libceph]
>>> [6888366.281164]  ? inet_recvmsg+0x5b/0xd0
>>> [6888366.281272]  ? ceph_tcp_recvmsg+0x6f/0xa0 [libceph]
>>> [6888366.281405]  ceph_con_process_message+0x79/0x140 [libceph]
>>> [6888366.281534]  ceph_con_v1_try_read+0x5d7/0xf30 [libceph]
>>> [6888366.281661]  ceph_con_workfn+0x329/0x680 [libceph]
>>> ```
>>>
>>> After analyzing the coredump file, we found that the address of dc->sb_bio
>>> has been freed. We know that cached_dev is only freed when it is stopped.
>>>
>>> Since sb_bio is a part of struct cached_dev, rather than an alloc every time.
>>> If the device is stopped while writing to the superblock, the released address
>>> will be accessed at endio.
>>>
>>> This patch hopes to wait for sb_write to complete in cached_dev_free.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mingzhe Zou <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Mingzhe,
>>
>> Yeah, this patch is in better shape. Thank for the fix up again.
>>
>>> ---
>>> v2: fix the crash caused by not calling closure_init in v1
>>> v3: pair the down and up of semaphore sb_write_mutex
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 8 ++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>>> index 64bb38c95895..97d9adb0bf96 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
>>> @@ -1373,6 +1373,14 @@ static CLOSURE_CALLBACK(cached_dev_free)
>>>  
>>>  	mutex_unlock(&bch_register_lock);
>>>  
>>> +	/*
>>> +	 * Wait for any pending sb_write to complete before free.
>>> +	 * The sb_bio is embedded in struct cached_dev, so we must
>>> +	 * ensure no I/O is in progress.
>>> +	 */
>>> +	down(&dc->sb_write_mutex);
>>> +	up(&dc->sb_write_mutex);
>>> +
>>>  	if (dc->sb_disk)
>>>  		folio_put(virt_to_folio(dc->sb_disk));
>>>  
>>
>> The patch itself is good. But the previous one (based on closre_sync()) is
>> in Jens block-tree. Let me ask.
>>
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Should Mingzhe send a incremental patch based on commit b36478a1fece in
>> block-7.0 branch of linux-block tree? Or Just use this patch to replace
>> the in-linux-block-tree one?
>>
> 
> Hi Mingzhe,
> 
> Considering no responds from Jens at this moment, I assume that an incremental
> patch againt the already-in-linux-block patch might be more convenient for him.
> Then he can simply apply the incremental patch without extra rebase stuffs.
> 
> Can you re-compose a patch against block-7.0 branch of linux-block tree?

Yes send a new patch, I'm not going to rebase the tree just to fold in
a fix for a patch that's deep in the stack. The fixup doesn't even
mention which patch it's fixing either...

-- 
Jens Axboe