On 2021/06/12 0:18, Pavel Tatashin wrote:

quoted

quoted

Well, I made commit 310ca162d779efee ("block/loop: Use global lock for ioctl() operation.")
because per device lock was not sufficient. Did commit 6cc8e7430801fa23 ("loop: scale loop
device by introducing per device lock") take this problem into account?

This was my intention when I wrote 6cc8e7430801fa23 ("loop: scale loop
device by introducing per device lock"). This is why this change does
not simply revert 310ca162d779efee ("block/loop: Use global lock for
ioctl() operation."), but keeps loop_ctl_mutex to protect the global
accesses.  loop_control_ioctl() is still locked by global
loop_ctl_mutex.

No, loop_control_ioctl() (i.e. /dev/loop-control) is irrelevant here.
What 310ca162d779efee addressed but (I worry) 6cc8e7430801fa23 broke is
lo_ioctl() (i.e. /dev/loop$num).

syzbot was reporting NULL pointer dereference which is caused by
race condition between ioctl(loop_fd, LOOP_CLR_FD, 0) versus
ioctl(other_loop_fd, LOOP_SET_FD, loop_fd) due to traversing other
loop devices at loop_validate_file() without holding corresponding
lo->lo_mutex lock.

For example, loop_change_fd("/dev/loop0") calls loop_validate_file()
with only "/dev/loop0"->lo_mutex held. Then, loop_validate_file() finds
that is_loop_device("/dev/loop0") == true and enters the "while" loop.
In the "while" loop, there is

	if (l->lo_state != Lo_bound) {
		return -EINVAL;
	}
	f = l->lo_backing_file;

which has a race window that l->lo_backing_file suddenly becomes NULL
between these statements because __loop_clr_fd("/dev/loop1") is doing

	lo->lo_backing_file = NULL;

with only "/dev/loop1"->lo_mutex held.

In other words, loop_validate_file() is a global accesses which are
no longer protected by loop_ctl_mutex, isn't it?