Re: [PATCH] LIB: remove unmatched write_lock() in gen_pool_destroy

From: Steve Wise
Date: Mon Jun 15 2009 - 20:27:50 EST


Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:30:32 -0500
Steve Wise <swise@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew Morton wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:35:31 +0200 (CEST)
Jiri Kosina <trivial@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

- write_lock(&pool->lock);
list_for_each_safe(_chunk, _next_chunk, &pool->chunks) {
chunk = list_entry(_chunk, struct gen_pool_chunk, next_chunk);
list_del(&chunk->next_chunk);
--
1.5.6.5

Hi Zygo,

this doesn't really qualify for trivial tree, as it introduces a significant code change. Adding some CCs.
yep, I merged it, thanks.

I wonder why drivers/infiniband/hw/cxgb3 users never noticed this.
I seem to remember trying to get this removed a few years ago and the owner didn't want it removed...


void gen_pool_destroy(struct gen_pool *pool)
{
struct list_head *_chunk, *_next_chunk;
struct gen_pool_chunk *chunk;
int order = pool->min_alloc_order;
int bit, end_bit;


write_lock(&pool->lock);
list_for_each_safe(_chunk, _next_chunk, &pool->chunks) {
chunk = list_entry(_chunk, struct gen_pool_chunk, next_chunk);
list_del(&chunk->next_chunk);

end_bit = (chunk->end_addr - chunk->start_addr) >> order;
bit = find_next_bit(chunk->bits, end_bit, 0);
BUG_ON(bit < end_bit);

kfree(chunk);
}
kfree(pool);
return;
}

The write_lock is unneeded and wrong. Because if any other thread of
control is concurrently playing with this pool, it will sometimes do a
use-after-free.

So no other thread of control should have access to this pool, so
there's no need for the write_lock().

Yup.

My original patch adding gen_pool_destroy() didn't have the write_lock(). It was added as part of "reviewing" the patch. :)

Steve.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/