linux-kernel - Re: libata-core.c: unsafe cancel_delayed

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 2 May 2007 03:48:22 +0400
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...sign.ru>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: libata-core.c: unsafe cancel_delayed_work() usage?

On 05/01, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> >Alan, the usage of cancel_delayed_work() in drivers/ata/libata-core.c looks
> >suspicious to me, both ->hotplug_task and ->port_task can re-arm 
> >themselves,
> >so cancel_delayed_work + flush_workqueue (or cancel_work_sync) is not 
> >enough.
> >
> >Could you confirm/nack my understanding?
> 
> For all rearming workqueues, one must use cancel-rearming-blahblah.

Well, yes and no. cancel_rearming_delayed_work() requires that dwork
re-arms itself unconditionally, otherwise it just hangs (actually, the
patch to fix this shortcoming is ready). However, ata_pio_task() for
example, re-arms only when ATA_BUSY.

So it is very possible that the code is correct, if the caller of
ata_port_flush_task() ensures that ATA_BUSY is not possible. Otherwise
we should change cancel_rearming_delayed_work() and use it.

Oleg.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/