[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <69170178-f149-b44b-6465-a4c6ab893d52@windriver.com>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:43:31 +0800
From: qzhang2 <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
To: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix double kfree(rescuer) in
destroy_workqueue()
Sorry I didn't describe clearly
I describe the meaning as follows:
destroy_workqueue:
if(wq->rescuer)
struct worker *rescuer = wq->rescuer
kfree(rescuer) //first kfree
if (!(wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND))
call_rcu(&wq->rcu, rcu_free_wq)
rcu_free_wq
kfree(wq->rescuer) //second kfree
there are double free.
On 5/24/20 11:33 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> When destroy_workqueue if rescuer worker exist,wq->rescuer pointer be
>> kfree. if sanity checks passed. the func call_rcu(&wq->rcu, rcu_free_wq)
>> will be called if the wq->flags & WQ_UNBOUND is false,in rcu_free_wq
>> func wq->rescuer pointer was kfree again.
>
> 1. I suggest to improve also this change description.
> Do you try to explain here that a call of the function “free_workqueue_attrs”
> (or “free_percpu”) would perform sufficient clean-up of system resources
> in this use case?
>
> 2. You proposed to delete the function call “kfree(wq->rescuer)” from
> the implementation of the function “rcu_free_wq”.
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/kernel/workqueue.c?id=c11d28ab4a691736e30b49813fb801847bd44e83#n3482
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.7-rc6/source/kernel/workqueue.c#L3482
>
> This function name should be specified also in the patch subject,
> shouldn't it?
>
> 3. Would you like to add the tag “Fixes” to the commit message?
>
> Regards,
> Markus
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists