linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus

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

Message-ID: <20210826201503.ycckbcpu3f6flbb6@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
Date:   Thu, 26 Aug 2021 20:15:03 +0000
From:   Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
Cc:     Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
        Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
        "longli@...uxonhyperv.com" <longli@...uxonhyperv.com>,
        "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Wilczyński <kw@...ux.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:09:19PM +0000, Long Li wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: hv: Fix a bug on removing child devices on the bus
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 04:50:28PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> > > From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2021
> > > 1:25 PM
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought list_for_each_entry_safe() is for use when list
> > > > > manipulation is *not* protected by a lock and you want to safely
> > > > > walk the list even if an entry gets removed.  If the list is
> > > > > protected by a lock or not subject to contention (as is the case
> > > > > here), then
> > > > > list_for_each_entry() is the simpler implementation.  The original
> > > > > implementation didn't need to use the _safe version because of the spin
> > lock.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or do I have it backwards?
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > I think we need list_for_each_entry_safe() because we delete the list
> > elements while going through them:
> > > >
> > > > Here is the comment on list_for_each_entry_safe():
> > > > /**
> > > >  * Loop through the list, keeping a backup pointer to the element.
> > > > This
> > > >  * macro allows for the deletion of a list element while looping
> > > > through the
> > > >  * list.
> > > >  *
> > > >  * See list_for_each_entry for more details.
> > > >  */
> > > >
> > >
> > > Got it.  Thanks (and to Rob Herring).   I read that comment but
> > > with the wrong assumptions and didn't understand it correctly.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, pci-hyperv.c has another case of looping through this
> > > list and removing items where the _safe version is not used.
> > > See pci_devices_present_work() where the missing children are moved to
> > > a list on the stack.
> > 
> > That can be converted too, I think.
> > 
> > The original code is not wrong per-se. It is just not as concise as using
> > list_for_each_entry_safe.
> > 
> > Wei.
> 
> I assume we are talking about the following code in pci_devices_present_work():
> 
>                 list_for_each_entry(hpdev, &hbus->children, list_entry) {
>                         if (hpdev->reported_missing) {
>                                 found = true;
>                                 put_pcichild(hpdev);
>                                 list_move_tail(&hpdev->list_entry, &removed);
>                                 break;
>                         }
>                 }
> 
> This code is correct as there is a "break" after a list entry is
> removed from the list. So there is no need to use the _safe version.
> This code can be converted to use the _safe version.

After this block there is another block like

  while (!list_empty(removed)) {
	...
  	list_del(...)

  }

I assumed Michael was referring to that block. :-)

Wei.