[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <502CA6C3.4040903@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 07:52:35 +0000
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Chanho Min <chanho0207@...il.com>
CC: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] remove the queue unlock in scsi_requset_fn
On 08/16/12 01:35, Chanho Min wrote:
>> functions will occur in line. I also don't see why the sdev reference
>> couldn't drop to zero here.
> scsi_request_fn is called under the lock of request_queue->queue_lock.
> If we drop the sdev reference to zero here,
> scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext is
> invoked and make request_queue to NULL. When caller of scsi_request_fn try to
> unlock request_queue->queue_lock, the oops is occurred.
Whether or not your patch is applied, if the put_device() call in
scsi_request_fn() decreases the sdev reference count to zero, the
scsi_request_fn() caller will still try to unlock the queue lock after
scsi_request_fn() finished and hence will trigger a use-after-free. I'm
afraid the only real solution is to modify the SCSI and/or block layers
such that scsi_remove_device() can't finish while scsi_request_fn() is
in progress. And once that is guaranteed the get_device() / put_device()
pair can be left out from scsi_request_fn().
Bart.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists