[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhGHyCAGd3cK_hmV6sQZfODXwFT82g37xPhOcSWNO3ktH3V2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:08:16 +0800
From: Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@...il.com>
To: Jakob Koschel <jkl820.git@...il.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Pietro Borrello <borrello@...g.uniroma1.it>,
Cristiano Giuffrida <c.giuffrida@...nl>,
"Bos, H.J." <h.j.bos@...nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: avoid usage of list iterator after loop in __flush_workqueue()
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 7:23 AM Jakob Koschel <jkl820.git@...il.com> wrote:
>
> If the list_for_each_entry_safe() iteration never breaks, 'next' would
> contain an invalid pointer past the iterator loop. To ensure 'next' is
> always valid, we only set it if the correct element was found. That
> allows adding a WARN_ON_ONCE in case the code works incorrectly,
> exposing currently undetectable potential bugs.
Hello
In the code, if I did not miss anything important, I don't think there are any
way that the 'next' is invalid because it is used after this check:
if (list_empty(&wq->flusher_queue))
which means the list_for_each_entry_safe() iteration did break and
the 'next' is valid.
(the code also moves entries from &wq->flusher_overflow to
wq->flusher_queue, but it only happens when wq->flusher_queue
is not empty because the number of colors > 2)
The logic is quite complicated and I agree with you that we
should avoid using the 'next' after the loop directly and remove
any possible misunderstanding/confusion.
But I don't want to make the code even more complicated by
adding more variables.
I prefer reinitializing the "next" before it is reused as:
next = list_first_entry(&wq->flusher_queue, struct wq_flusher, list);
Thanks
Lai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists