[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170925152536.GL828415@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 08:25:36 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: tanxiaofei <tanxiaofei@...wei.com>
Cc: jiangshanlai@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [Question] null pointer risk of kernel workqueue
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 05:04:24PM +0800, tanxiaofei wrote:
> Hi Tejun & Jiangshan,
>
> I find an null pointer risk in the code of workqueue. Here is description:
>
> If draining, __queue_work() will call the function is_chained_work() to do some checks.
> In is_chained_work(), worker->current_pwq is used directly. It should be not safe.
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L1384
>
> If you check the thread function of this worker, worker_thread(), you will find worker->current_pwq
> is null when one work is done or ready to be processed.
> This issue may happen only if we queue work during executing drain_workqueue().
> http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L2173
Hmmm? I don't get it. worker->current_pwq is guaranteed to be set
while a work function is being executed and the chained check can only
get there iff the the worker is executing a work function.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists