[lvc-project] [PATCH] net/9p: fix infinite loop in p9_client_rpc on fatal signal

Thu Apr 16 15:49:59 MSK 2026

Hi Dominique,

On 4/16/26 04:41, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Vasiliy Kovalev wrote on Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 06:52:37PM +0300:
>> The same defect is present in stable kernels back to 5.4. On those
>> kernels the infinite loop is broken earlier by a second SIGKILL from
>> the parent process (e.g. kill_and_wait() retrying after a timeout),
>> resulting in a zombie process and a shutdown delay rather than a
>> permanent D-state hang, but the underlying flaw is the same.
>>
>> Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.
> 
> It's unfortunately not that simple, just leaving here will leak things.

Following up on your concern about leaking things (as mentioned in the
thread with Shigeru Yoshida's patch) - I did some tracing with `printk`
inside `p9_req_put` and `p9_tag_remove` to see exactly what happens to
the request lifecycle with my proposed patch vs Shigeru's approach:

diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
index 748b92d3f0c1..4e8f4e0195b4 100644
--- a/net/9p/client.c
+++ b/net/9p/client.c
@@ -274,10 +274,13 @@ static void p9_tag_remove(struct p9_client *c, 
struct p9_req_t *r)
         spin_lock_irqsave(&c->lock, flags);
         idr_remove(&c->reqs, tag);
         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&c->lock, flags);
+       printk("tag %d removed from IDR\n", tag);
  }

  int p9_req_put(struct p9_client *c, struct p9_req_t *r)
  {
+       printk("p9_req_put req %p tag %d refcount before=%d\n",
+         r, r->tc.tag, refcount_read(&r->refcount));
         if (refcount_dec_and_test(&r->refcount)) {
                 p9_tag_remove(c, r);

There is a significant difference.

If we use Shigeru's approach [1] (preventing the flush from being
sent/processed using `!fatal_signal_pending(current)` in the condition),
the original request (tag 0) is never freed from the IDR. It creates a
definitive memory and tag leak:

[root at localhost]# ./repro
executing program
[   50.613200] p9_req_put req ff11000110157cb0 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   50.663513] p9_req_put req ff11000110157cb0 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   50.665156] p9_req_put req ff11000110157cb0 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   50.666593] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
[   50.688232] p9_req_put req ff11000110157ba0 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   50.739634] p9_req_put req ff11000110157ba0 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   50.741170] p9_req_put req ff11000110157ba0 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   50.742587] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
[   50.775708] p9_req_put req ff11000110157a90 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   50.825104] p9_req_put req ff11000110157a90 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   50.827719] p9_req_put req ff11000110157a90 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   50.830432] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
...

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260322111848.2837057-1-syoshida@redhat.com/

However, with my patch (jumping to `recalc_sigpending` *inside* the
`P9_TFLUSH` wait loop), the logic works cleanly due to the `refcount`
mechanism:

[root at localhost]# ./repro
executing program
[   48.875093] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdcb0 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   48.925981] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdba0 tag 0 refcount before=3
[   53.873969] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdba0 tag 0 refcount before=2
[   53.876638] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdcb0 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   53.879882] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdba0 tag 0 refcount before=1
[   53.882505] tag 0 removed from IDR
[   53.884184] p9_req_put req ff110001056fdcb0 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   53.886905] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
[   53.914764] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97a90 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   53.967191] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97980 tag 0 refcount before=3
[   58.909626] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97980 tag 0 refcount before=2
[   58.912420] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97a90 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   58.915358] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97980 tag 0 refcount before=1
[   58.918478] tag 0 removed from IDR
[   58.920730] p9_req_put req ff1100010ca97a90 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   58.923715] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
[   58.946905] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3870 tag 65535 refcount before=3
[   58.998260] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3760 tag 0 refcount before=3
[   63.945960] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3760 tag 0 refcount before=2
[   63.948549] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3870 tag 65535 refcount before=2
[   63.951153] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3760 tag 0 refcount before=1
[   63.953651] tag 0 removed from IDR
[   63.957254] p9_req_put req ff1100010c5a3870 tag 65535 refcount before=1
[   63.960655] tag 65535 removed from IDR
executing program
...

1. The dying thread breaks out of the loop and calls `p9_req_put()`.
The refcount correctly drops from 2 to 1.

2. The tag is NOT removed from the IDR yet, preventing any Use-After-Free.
The request is safely "orphaned".

3. Shortly after, when the parent process closes the pipe/socket (or the
transport is torn down due to process exit), the transport layer cleans up
the pending requests. It calls the final `p9_req_put()`, refcount hits 0,
and the tag is properly removed from the IDR.

My logs clearly show `refcount before=1 -> tag 0 removed from IDR` upon
transport teardown, proving there is no permanent leak when breaking out
of the `TFLUSH` loop this way.

Since this safely resolves the permanent D-state hang during
`coredump_wait()` without causing the UAF or leaks that plagued earlier
kernels (pre-`728356dedeff` ("9p: Add refcount to p9_req_t")), do you
think this pragmatic fix is acceptable for mainline and stable?

> There was another patch last month, help is welcome,
> please see https://lore.kernel.org/r/ab_b-95Ok9zLQCdn@codewreck.org

While the ideal long-term goal is the asynchronous implementation (as
seen in your 9p-async-v2 branch [2]), this patch serves as a reliable
intermediate solution for a critical regression.

[2] https://github.com/martinetd/linux/commits/9p-async-v2

> (By the way, what's with the rekindled interest on this?...)
> 

The issue was identified by Syzkaller, and I have a stable C reproducer
that consistently triggers the hang. There is also a similar report on
Syzbot with a nearly identical reproducer:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/text?tag=ReproC&x=156aa534580000

-- 
Thanks,
Vasiliy

