[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180614083806.GA18966@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:38:06 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Anatoliy Glagolev <glagolig@...il.com>
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix bsg_unregister and bsg_open race
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 04:14:18PM -0600, Anatoliy Glagolev wrote:
> The existing implementation allows races between bsg_unregister and
> bsg_open paths. bsg_ungegister and request_queue cleanup and
> deletion may start and complete right after bsg_get_device (in bsg_open path)
> retrieves bsg_class_device and releases the mutex. Then bsg_open path
> touches freed memory of bsg_class_device and request_queue.
>
> One possible fix is to hold the mutex all the way through bsg_get_device
> instead of releasing it after bsg_class_device retrieval.
This looks generally fine to me. Nitpicks below:
> @@ -746,16 +745,18 @@ static struct bsg_device *bsg_get_device(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> */
> mutex_lock(&bsg_mutex);
> bcd = idr_find(&bsg_minor_idr, iminor(inode));
> - mutex_unlock(&bsg_mutex);
>
> if (!bcd)
> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
This needs to unlock the mutex. E.g.
if (!bcd) {
bd = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
goto out_unlock;
}
> bd = __bsg_get_device(iminor(inode), bcd->queue);
> + if (bd) {
> + mutex_unlock(&bsg_mutex);
> return bd;
> + }
>
> bd = bsg_add_device(inode, bcd->queue, file);
> + mutex_unlock(&bsg_mutex);
>
> return bd;
I'd simply do:
bd = __bsg_get_device(iminor(inode), bcd->queue);
if (!bd)
bd = bsg_add_device(inode, bcd->queue, file);
out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&bsg_mutex);
return bd;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists