linux-kernel - Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/kmemleak.c: Use list_for_each_entry_safe to reconstruct function scan_gray

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <201306030858459339090@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:58:49 +0800
From:	majianpeng <majianpeng@...il.com>
To:	"Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/kmemleak.c: Use list_for_each_entry_safe to reconstruct function scan_gray_list

>On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:49:44PM +0100, majianpeng wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma <majianpeng@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  mm/kmemleak.c | 8 +-------
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/kmemleak.c b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> index b1525db..f0ece93 100644
>> --- a/mm/kmemleak.c
>> +++ b/mm/kmemleak.c
>> @@ -1225,22 +1225,16 @@ static void scan_gray_list(void)
>>  	 * from inside the loop. The kmemleak objects cannot be freed from
>>  	 * outside the loop because their use_count was incremented.
>>  	 */
>> -	object = list_entry(gray_list.next, typeof(*object), gray_list);
>> -	while (&object->gray_list != &gray_list) {
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(object, tmp, &gray_list, gray_list) {
>>  		cond_resched();
>>  
>>  		/* may add new objects to the list */
>>  		if (!scan_should_stop())
>>  			scan_object(object);
>>  
>> -		tmp = list_entry(object->gray_list.next, typeof(*object),
>> -				 gray_list);
>> -
>>  		/* remove the object from the list and release it */
>>  		list_del(&object->gray_list);
>>  		put_object(object);
>> -
>> -		object = tmp;
>>  	}
>>  	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&gray_list));
>
>I tried this patch for a few days and I hit the WARN_ON after the loop.
>During scanning, new entries may be added at the end of the loop but we
>need to loop until all the entries have been removed. I probably had a
>reason why I had the 'while' loop.
>
>The key difference is that list_for_each_entry_safe() gets the next
>entry (n or tmp above) before scan_object() and it may hit the end of
>the list. However, scan_object() may do a list_add_tail(&gray_list)
>hence we need to get the next entry after this function.
>
>Basically list_for_each_entry_safe() is not safe with tail additions.
>I'll revert this patch (hasn't reached mainline anyway).
>
Ok, i see. 
Thanks!
>Thanks.
>
>-- 
>Catalin