linux-kernel - Re: sched: fair: NULL ptr deref in check_preempt

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: <5302C4F1.3020907@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:26:57 +0800
From:	Michael wang <wangyun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sched: fair: NULL ptr deref in check_preempt_wakeup

On 02/17/2014 05:20 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
[snip]
>>  static void switched_to_fair(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *p)
>>  {
>> -	if (!p->se.on_rq)
>> +	struct sched_entity *se = &p->se;
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_FAIR_GROUP_SCHED
>> +	se->depth = se->parent ? se->parent->depth + 1 : 0;
>> +#endif
>> +	if (!se->on_rq)
>>  		return;
>>  
>>  	/*
> 
> Yes indeed. My first idea yesterday was to put it in set_task_rq() to be
> absolutely sure we catch all; but if this is sufficient its better.

Agree, let's wait for Sasha's testing result then :)

Regards,
Michael Wang

> 
> Thanks!
> --
> 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/
> 

--
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/