[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZPd4yKqbvBNGV7cL@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 08:51:52 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>
Cc: jiangshanlai@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] workqueue: Fix UAF report by KASAN in
pwq_release_workfn()
Hello,
On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 07:50:26PM +0800, Zqiang wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/workqueue.c b/kernel/workqueue.c
> index c85825e17df8..f3f9c9222070 100644
> --- a/kernel/workqueue.c
> +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c
> @@ -4609,6 +4609,10 @@ static int alloc_and_link_pwqs(struct workqueue_struct *wq)
> free_percpu(wq->cpu_pwq);
> wq->cpu_pwq = NULL;
> }
> + wq_unregister_lockdep(wq);
> + wq_free_lockdep(wq);
> + free_workqueue_attrs(wq->unbound_attrs);
> + kfree(wq);
So, this would fix the bug but it's quite confusing because we end up taking
two separate error handling paths and alloc_and_link_pwqs() ends up freeing
stuff allocated outside the function. Wouldn't it be enough to flush the
pwq_release_worker after apply_workqueue_attrs() failure so that the cleanup
operation ordering is maintained?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists