On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:48 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 09:08:12PM +0100, Luis Henriques wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03 2025, Joanne Koong wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:35 AM Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> These two functions make use of the WARN_ON_ONCE() macro to help debugging
> > >> a NULL wpc->wb_ctx. However, this doesn't prevent the possibility of NULL
> > >> pointer dereferences in the code. This patch adds some extra defensive
> > >> checks to avoid these NULL pointer accesses.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: ef7e7cbb323f ("fuse: use iomap for writeback")
> > >> Signed-off-by: Luis Henriques <luis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> ---
> > >> Hi!
> > >>
> > >> This v2 results from Joanne's inputs -- I now believe that it is better to
> > >> keep the WARN_ON_ONCE() macros, but it's still good to try to minimise
> > >> the undesirable effects of a NULL wpc->wb_ctx.
> > >>
> > >> I've also added the 'Fixes:' tag to the commit message.
> > >>
> > >> fs/fuse/file.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > >> index 5525a4520b0f..990c287bc3e3 100644
> > >> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> > >> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> > >> @@ -2135,14 +2135,18 @@ static ssize_t fuse_iomap_writeback_range(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc,
> > >> unsigned len, u64 end_pos)
> > >> {
> > >> struct fuse_fill_wb_data *data = wpc->wb_ctx;
> > >> - struct fuse_writepage_args *wpa = data->wpa;
> > >> - struct fuse_args_pages *ap = &wpa->ia.ap;
> > >> + struct fuse_writepage_args *wpa;
> > >> + struct fuse_args_pages *ap;
> > >> struct inode *inode = wpc->inode;
> > >> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> > >> struct fuse_conn *fc = get_fuse_conn(inode);
> > >> loff_t offset = offset_in_folio(folio, pos);
> > >>
> > >> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);
> > >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!data))
> > >> + return -EIO;
> > >
> > > imo this WARN_ON_ONCE (and the one below) should be left as is instead
> > > of embedded in the "if" construct. The data pointer passed in is set
> > > by fuse and as such, we're able to reasonably guarantee that data is a
> > > valid pointer. Looking at other examples of WARN_ON in the fuse
> > > codebase, the places where an "if" construct is used are for cases
> > > where the assumptions that are made are more delicate (eg folio
> > > mapping state, in fuse_try_move_folio()) and less clearly obvious. I
> > > think this WARN_ON_ONCE here and below should be left as is.
> >
> > OK, thank you for your feedback, Joanne. So, if Miklos agrees with that,
> > I guess we can drop this patch.
I think having the two lines "wpa = data->wpa;" and "ap = &wpa->ia.ap"
moved to below the "WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);" would still be useful
>
> AFAICT, this function can only be called by other iomap-using functions
> in file.c, and those other functions always set
> iomap_writepage_ctx::wb_ctx so I /think/ the assertions aren't necessary
> at all...
>
> > Cheers,
> > --
> > Luís
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joanne
> > >
> > >> +
> > >> + wpa = data->wpa;
> > >> + ap = &wpa->ia.ap;
> > >>
> > >> if (!data->ff) {
>
> ...because if someone fails to set wpc->wb_ctx, this line will crash the
> kernel at least as much as the WARN_ON would. IOWs, the WARN_ONs aren't
> necessary but I don't think they hurt much.
>
Oh, I see. Actually, this explanation makes a lot of sense. When I was
looking at the other WARN_ON usages in fuse, I noticed they were also
used even if it's logically proven that the code path can never be
triggered. But I guess what you're saying is that WARN_ONs in general
should be used if it's otherwise somehow undetectable / non-obvious
that the condition is violated? That makes sense to me, and checks out
with the other fuse WARN_ON uses.
I'm fine with just removing the WARN_ON(!data) here and below. I think
I added some more WARN_ONs in my other fuse iomap patchset, so I'll
remove those as well when I send out a new version.
> You could introduce a CONFIG_FUSE_DEBUG option and hide some assertions
> and whatnot behind it, ala CONFIG_FUSE_IOMAP_DEBUG*:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/tree/fs/fuse/iomap_priv.h?h=djwong-wtf&id=170269a48ae83ea7ce1e23ea5ff39995600efff0
>
In that case, personally I'd much prefer removing the WARN_ONs here
than having a new config for it.
Thanks,
Joanne
> --D
>
> > >> data->ff = fuse_write_file_get(fi);
> > >> @@ -2182,7 +2186,8 @@ static int fuse_iomap_writeback_submit(struct iomap_writepage_ctx *wpc,
> > >> {
> > >> struct fuse_fill_wb_data *data = wpc->wb_ctx;
> > >>
> > >> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!data);
> > >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!data))
> > >> + return error ? error : -EIO;
> > >>
> > >> if (data->wpa) {
> > >> WARN_ON(!data->wpa->ia.ap.num_folios);
> >
> >
