Hi,
On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 10:09 PM Giorgi Tchankvetadze
<giorgitchankvetadze1997@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Makes sense, yeah. What about using a shared, long-lived completion
> object (done_acc) inside cgwb_frn. All writeback jobs point to this same
> object via work->done = &frn->done_acc.
Well, IMO there's still no method to know which work has finished and
which hasn't. All we know is whether all the work has finished or not,
isn't it?
>
> On 8/23/2025 12:23 PM, Julian Sun wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 4:08 PM Giorgi Tchankvetadze
> > <giorgitchankvetadze1997@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > Hi there. Can we fix this by allowing callers to set work->done =
> > NULL > when no completion is desired?
> > No, we can't do that. Because cgwb_frn needs to track the state of wb
> > work by work->done.cnt, if we set work->done = Null, then we can not
> > know whether the wb work finished or not. See
> > mem_cgroup_track_foreign_dirty_slowpath() and
> > mem_cgroup_flush_foreign() for details.
> >
> >> The already-existing "if (done)" check in finish_writeback_work() > already provides the necessary protection, so the change is purely >
> > mechanical. > > > > On 8/23/2025 10:18 AM, Julian Sun wrote: > > Hi, > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025 at 1:56 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >
> > >> > Hello, > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 04:22:09PM +0800, Julian Sun >
> > > wrote: > > +struct wb_wait_queue_head { > > + wait_queue_head_t
> > waitq; > > > > + wb_wait_wakeup_func_t wb_wakeup_func; > > +}; > >
> > wait_queue_head_t > > itself already allows overriding the wakeup
> > function. > Please look for > > init_wait_func() usages in the tree.
> > Hopefully, that should > contain > > the changes within memcg. > >
> > Well... Yes, I checked this function before, but it can't do the same >
> > > thing as in the previous email. There are some differences—please > >
> > check the code in the last email. > > > > First, let's clarify: the key
> > point here is that if we want to remove > > wb_wait_for_completion() and
> > avoid self-freeing, we must not access > > "done" in
> > finish_writeback_work(), otherwise it will cause a UAF. > > However,
> > init_wait_func() can't achieve this. Of course, I also admit > > that
> > the method in the previous email seems a bit odd. > > > > To summarize
> > again, the root causes of the problem here are: > > 1. When memcg is
> > released, it calls wb_wait_for_completion() to > > prevent UAF, which is
> > completely unnecessary—cgwb_frn only needs to > > issue wb work and no
> > need to wait writeback finished. > > 2. The current
> > finish_writeback_work() will definitely dereference > > "done", which
> > may lead to UAF. > > > > Essentially, cgwb_frn introduces a new scenario
> > where no wake-up is > > needed. Therefore, we just need to make
> > finish_writeback_work() not > > dereference "done" and not wake up the
> > waiting thread. However, this > > cannot keep the modifications within
> > memcg... > > > > Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. >
> > >> > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Julian Sun
> > <sunjunchao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Aug 23, 2025
> > at 1:56 AM Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Hello, > > On Fri,
> > Aug 22, 2025 at 04:22:09PM +0800, Julian Sun > > wrote: > > +struct
> > wb_wait_queue_head { > > + wait_queue_head_t waitq; > > > > +
> > wb_wait_wakeup_func_t wb_wakeup_func; > > +}; > > wait_queue_head_t > >
> > itself already allows overriding the wakeup function. > Please look for
> > > > init_wait_func() usages in the tree. Hopefully, that should >
> > contain > > the changes within memcg. > > Well... Yes, I checked this
> > function before, but it can't do the same > > thing as in the previous
> > email. There are some differences—please > > check the code in the last
> > email. > > > > First, let's clarify: the key point here is that if we
> > want to remove > > wb_wait_for_completion() and avoid self-freeing, we
> > must not access > > "done" in finish_writeback_work(), otherwise it will
> > cause a UAF. > > However, init_wait_func() can't achieve this. Of
> > course, I also admit > > that the method in the previous email seems a
> > bit odd. > > > > To summarize again, the root causes of the problem here
> > are: > > 1. When memcg is released, it calls wb_wait_for_completion() to
> > > > prevent UAF, which is completely unnecessary—cgwb_frn only needs to
> > > > issue wb work and no need to wait writeback finished. > > 2. The
> > current finish_writeback_work() will definitely dereference > > "done",
> > which may lead to UAF. > > > > Essentially, cgwb_frn introduces a new
> > scenario where no wake-up is > > needed. Therefore, we just need to make
> > finish_writeback_work() not > > dereference "done" and not wake up the
> > waiting thread. However, this > > cannot keep the modifications within
> > memcg... > > > > Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect. >
> > >> > Thanks. > > -- > tejun > > > > Thanks, > > -- > > Julian Sun
> > <sunjunchao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Julian Sun <sunjunchao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
>
Thanks,
--
Julian Sun <sunjunchao@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
