From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44972 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932189AbdJ3OPY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:15:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] lib/dlock-list: Fix use-after-unlock problem in
 dlist_for_each_entry_safe()
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>,
        "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
References: <1507229008-20569-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <1509135053-19214-1-git-send-email-longman@redhat.com>
 <20171030141147.leqcsaxebwiq6dq6@linux-n805>
From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <0fc66521-2a5f-1dc3-bd37-784a1435c7a8@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 10:15:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20171030141147.leqcsaxebwiq6dq6@linux-n805>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On 10/30/2017 10:11 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017, Waiman Long wrote:
>
>> The dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro in include/linux/dlock-list has
>> a use-after-unlock problem where racing condition can happen because
>> of a lack of spinlock protection.  Fortunately, this macro is not
>> currently being used in the kernel.
>>
>> This patch changes the dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro so that the
>> call to __dlock_list_next_list() is deferred until the next entry is
>> being used. That should eliminate the use-after-unlock problem.
>>
>> Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
>
> But would it not be better to merge this patch (among others) into 1/N?
> Specifically the newer patches 7-10 should be in the original dlock
> implementation instead of adding fixes to incorrect code in the original
> commit. Also less of a pita for backporting.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr +191,17 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node
> *node,

Yes, that is true. I will send out a new version with all the fixes
integrated later this week.

Cheers,
Longman