Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] blk-cgroup: fix race between policy activation and blkg destruction

["Yu Kuai" <yukuai@fnnas.com>]

Hi,

You are sending to my invalid huawei email address, so I didn't see this patch.

在 2026/1/13 14:10, Zheng Qixing 写道:
> From: Zheng Qixing <zhengqixing@huawei.com>
>
> When switching an IO scheduler on a block device, blkcg_activate_policy()
> allocates blkg_policy_data (pd) for all blkgs attached to the queue.
> However, blkcg_activate_policy() may race with concurrent blkcg deletion,
> leading to use-after-free and memory leak issues.
>
> The use-after-free occurs in the following race:
>
> T1 (blkcg_activate_policy):
>    - Successfully allocates pd for blkg1 (loop0->queue, blkcgA)
>    - Fails to allocate pd for blkg2 (loop0->queue, blkcgB)
>    - Enters the enomem rollback path to release blkg1 resources
>
> T2 (blkcg deletion):
>    - blkcgA is deleted concurrently
>    - blkg1 is freed via blkg_free_workfn()
>    - blkg1->pd is freed
>
> T1 (continued):
>    - Rollback path accesses blkg1->pd->online after pd is freed
>    - Triggers use-after-free
>
> In addition, blkg_free_workfn() frees pd before removing the blkg from
> q->blkg_list. This allows blkcg_activate_policy() to allocate a new pd
> for a blkg that is being destroyed, leaving the newly allocated pd
> unreachable when the blkg is finally freed.
>
> Fix these races by extending blkcg_mutex coverage to serialize
> blkcg_activate_policy() rollback and blkg destruction, ensuring pd
> lifecycle is synchronized with blkg list visibility.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260108014416.3656493-3-zhengqixing@huaweicloud.com/
> Fixes: f1c006f1c685 ("blk-cgroup: synchronize pd_free_fn() from blkg_free_workfn() and blkcg_deactivate_policy()")
> Signed-off-by: Zheng Qixing <zhengqixing@huawei.com>
> ---
>   block/blk-cgroup.c | 3 +++
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> index 3cffb68ba5d8..600f8c5843ea 100644
> --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
> +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> @@ -1596,6 +1596,8 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct gendisk *disk, const struct blkcg_policy *pol)
>   
>   	if (queue_is_mq(q))
>   		memflags = blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&q->blkcg_mutex);
>   retry:
>   	spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>   
> @@ -1658,6 +1660,7 @@ int blkcg_activate_policy(struct gendisk *disk, const struct blkcg_policy *pol)
>   
>   	spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>   out:
> +	mutex_unlock(&q->blkcg_mutex);
>   	if (queue_is_mq(q))
>   		blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, memflags);
>   	if (pinned_blkg)

Can you also protect blkg_destroy_all() will blkcg_mutex as well? Then all access for q->blkg_list will
be protected.

-- 
Thansk,
Kuai