linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] nbd: Fix NULL pointer in flush

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 linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

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

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

Message-ID: <28c83b00-7d0b-ee0d-640b-017c9f8410eb@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 1 Feb 2021 14:43:00 +0800
From:   Sun Ke <sunke32@...wei.com>
To:     Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <nbd@...er.debian.org>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>, Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nbd: Fix NULL pointer in flush_workqueue

hi，Markus

在 2021/1/29 3:42, Markus Elfring 写道:
> …
>> +++ b/drivers/block/nbd.c
>> @@ -2011,12 +2011,20 @@ static int nbd_genl_disconnect(struct sk_buff *skb, struct genl_info *info)
>>   		       index);
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>> +	mutex_lock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>   	if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&nbd->refs)) {
>>   		mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>> +		mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
> Can an other function call order become relevant for the unlocking of these mutexes?
Do you think the nbd->config_lock  mutex here is useless?
>
>
>>   		printk(KERN_ERR "nbd: device at index %d is going down\n",
>>   		       index);
> May such an error message be moved into the lock scope?
Sure.
>
>
>>   		return -EINVAL;
>>   	}
>> +	if (!nbd->recv_workq) {
>> +		mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
>> +		mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>> +		return -EINVAL;
>> +	}
> How do you think about to connect the code from this if branch
> with a jump target like “unlock” so that such statements would be shareable
> for the desired exception handling?
OK, I will improve it in V2 patch.
>
>
>> +	mutex_unlock(&nbd->config_lock);
>>   	mutex_unlock(&nbd_index_mutex);
>>   	if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&nbd->config_refs)) {
>>   		nbd_put(nbd);
>
> Regards,
> Markus
> .