linux-kernel - Re: [v2] workqueue: Fix double kfree for rescuer

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 PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 26 May 2020 10:05:44 +0800
From:   qzhang2 <qiang.zhang@...driver.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [v2] workqueue: Fix double kfree for rescuer

Thanks for your advice.
The rescuer null pointer is intentionally passed by a data structure?
and also I read the code of workqueue again, when destroy_workqueue is
called, after "wq->rescuer = NULL" was executed, The scenario described 
below does not happen

"if non-null pointers (according to valid rescuer objects) are 
occasionally passed by the corresponding data structure member
for the callback function "rcu_free_wq"."


On 5/25/20 6:40 PM, Markus Elfring wrote:
>> I see, kfree does nothing with null pointers and direct return.
>> but again kfree is not a good suggestion.
> 
> I have got the impression that the implementation detail is important here
> if non-null pointers (according to valid rescuer objects) are occasionally
> passed by the corresponding data structure member for the callback
> function “rcu_free_wq”.
> Can another clarification attempt reduce unwanted confusion for this patch review?
> 
> Regards,
> Markus
>