Re: [PATCH] ocfs2: fix use-after-free in ocfs2_inode_lock_full_nested during unmount

[Joseph Qi]

On 5/9/26 12:28 PM, Jiakai Xu wrote:
>> It seems this is not enough, or TOCTOU still exists. Say:
>>
>> Thread A			Thread B
>> osb = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb)
>> 				ocfs2_dismount_volume()
>> 				-> sb->s_fs_info = NULL
>> 				-> kfree(osb)
>> use freed osb
>>
> 
> Hi Joseph,
> 
> Thank you very much for the review! You are absolutely right about the
> TOCTOU issue — simply adding a NULL check after OCFS2_SB() cannot
> prevent the race where thread A reads a valid osb pointer before thread
> B frees it.
> 
>> BTW, how did you find this issue?
> 
> I found this issue through fuzzing. The crash report shows a page fault 
> at __pv_queued_spin_lock_slowpath via the call path:
> 
>   ocfs2_permission -> ocfs2_inode_lock_tracker ->
>   ocfs2_inode_lock_full_nested -> ocfs2_is_hard_readonly ->
>   spin_lock(&osb->osb_lock)

What is the operation?
We expect all operations cannot access filesystem during filesystem shutdown.

> 
> The fault address was in the kernel static data region, indicating that
> the osb structure had been freed and its memory reused.
> 
> I have been thinking about a more robust fix and would like to get your
> opinion on the following approach:
> 
> Currently, ocfs2_dismount_volume() is called from ocfs2_put_super(),
> which runs inside generic_shutdown_super() while s_umount is still held.
> The osb structure is freed at this point, but inodes with elevated
> refcounts (e.g., held by inotify) survive evict_inodes() and may still
> trigger filesystem operations (like ocfs2_permission) that access osb.
> 
> The idea is to move the osb cleanup out of ocfs2_dismount_volume() and
> into an ocfs2-specific ->kill_sb() callback, so that the cleanup happens
> after generic_shutdown_super() has completed and all concurrent VFS
> operations have drained.
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> 1. Remove ocfs2_delete_osb(), kfree(osb), and sb->s_fs_info = NULL from
>    ocfs2_dismount_volume(). Keep all the subsystem shutdown (journal,
>    dlm, recovery, quota, etc.) there.
> 
> 2. Add a new ocfs2_kill_sb() that wraps kill_block_super():
> 
>    static void ocfs2_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb)
>    {
>        struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(sb);
> 
>        kill_block_super(sb);
>        // At this point generic_shutdown_super() has completed,
>        // SB_DYING is set, and no new VFS operations can enter.
> 
>        if (osb) {
>            ocfs2_delete_osb(osb);
>            kfree(osb);
>            sb->s_fs_info = NULL;
>        }
>    }
> 
> 3. Update ocfs2_fs_type to use ocfs2_kill_sb instead of kill_block_super.
> 
> 4. The NULL check in ocfs2_inode_lock_full_nested() can optionally be
>    kept as a defense-in-depth measure, though it is no longer strictly
>    necessary if the life-cycle ordering is correct.
> 
> This pattern is similar to ext4 — ext4_kill_sb() calls kill_block_super()
> first and then handles cleanup after (e.g., journal_bdev_file).
> 
> Does this approach make sense?
> 

In generic_shutdown_super(), it clears SB_ACTIVE.
So it seems we can check this flag.

Thanks,
Joseph