linux-kernel - [ 044/110] rculist: list_first_or_null_rcu() should use list_entry

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]

Message-Id: <20130925001328.184875914@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:	Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:14:42 -0700
From:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	stable@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: [ 044/110] rculist: list_first_or_null_rcu() should use list_entry_rcu()

3.10-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>

commit c34ac00caefbe49d40058ae7200bd58725cebb45 upstream.

list_first_or_null() should test whether the list is empty and return
pointer to the first entry if not in a RCU safe manner.  It's broken
in several ways.

* It compares __kernel @__ptr with __rcu @__next triggering the
  following sparse warning.

  net/core/dev.c:4331:17: error: incompatible types in comparison expression (different address spaces)

* It doesn't perform rcu_dereference*() and computes the entry address
  using container_of() directly from the __rcu pointer which is
  inconsitent with other rculist interface.  As a result, all three
  in-kernel users - net/core/dev.c, macvlan, cgroup - are buggy.  They
  dereference the pointer w/o going through read barrier.

* While ->next dereference passes through list_next_rcu(), the
  compiler is still free to fetch ->next more than once and thus
  nullify the "__ptr != __next" condition check.

Fix it by making list_first_or_null_rcu() dereference ->next directly
using ACCESS_ONCE() and then use list_entry_rcu() on it like other
rculist accessors.

v2: Paul pointed out that the compiler may fetch the pointer more than
    once nullifying the condition check.  ACCESS_ONCE() added on
    ->next dereference.

v3: Restored () around macro param which was accidentally removed.
    Spotted by Paul.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Reported-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>
Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 include/linux/rculist.h |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/include/linux/rculist.h
+++ b/include/linux/rculist.h
@@ -267,8 +267,9 @@ static inline void list_splice_init_rcu(
  */
 #define list_first_or_null_rcu(ptr, type, member) \
 	({struct list_head *__ptr = (ptr); \
-	  struct list_head __rcu *__next = list_next_rcu(__ptr); \
-	  likely(__ptr != __next) ? container_of(__next, type, member) : NULL; \
+	  struct list_head *__next = ACCESS_ONCE(__ptr->next); \
+	  likely(__ptr != __next) ? \
+		list_entry_rcu(__next, type, member) : NULL; \
 	})

 /**

--
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/