[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cf6990b5-1978-3f05-375a-e22db480e832@virtuozzo.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 18:45:16 +0300
From: Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>
To: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipc/util.c: sysvipc_find_ipc() incorrectly updates
position index
On 5/12/20 12:21 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 08. 05. 20, 12:01, Vasily Averin wrote:
>> On 5/8/20 9:07 AM, Vasily Averin wrote:
>>> On 5/8/20 6:36 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 05:02:42PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>>> Here's how I resolved things. Please check?
>>>>>
>>>>> static struct kern_ipc_perm *sysvipc_find_ipc(struct ipc_ids *ids, loff_t pos,
>>>>> loff_t *new_pos)
>>>>> {
>>>>> unsigned long index = pos;
>>>>> struct kern_ipc_perm *ipc;
>>>>>
>>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>>> ipc = xa_find(&ids->ipcs, &index, ULONG_MAX, XA_PRESENT);
>>>>> if (ipc)
>>>>> ipc_lock_object(ipc);
>>>>> else
>>>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>>>> *new_pos = pos + 1;
>>>>> return ipc;
>>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Surely that should be '*new_pos = index + 1'? Or did I misunderstand
>>>> the reasoning behind the other patch?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure however it looks like xa_find() can return index < pos
>> it seems, I was wrong here.
>> So I'm agree with Matthew, '*new_pos = index + 1' should be used.
>
> Any progress on this? 5.7-rc*, 5.4.40, and 5.6.12 are still affected.
Andrew included fix to -mm tree and I hope he'll push it to mainline/stable soon.
https://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmots/broken-out/ipc-utilc-sysvipc_find_ipc-incorrectly-updates-position-index.patch
> Wouldn't it be better to rebase (apply the originally submitted patch)
> before the XA rewrite and push that one to Linus?
I'm expecting thins too.
Thank you,
Vasily Averin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists