Re: [PATCHSET] kthread_worker: reimplement flush_kthread_work() toallow freeing during execution

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 01:28:50PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:40:16PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 03:50:40PM -0700, Colin Cross wrote:
> > > This patch set fixes a reproducible crash I'm seeing on a 3.4.10
> > > kernel.  flush_kthread_worker (which is different from
> > > flush_kthread_work) is initializing a kthread_work and a completion on
> > > the stack, then queuing it and calling wait_for_completion.  Once the
> > > completion is signaled, flush_kthread_worker exits and the stack
> > > region used by the kthread_work may be immediately reused by another
> > > object on the stack, but kthread_worker_fn continues accessing its
> > > work pointer:
> > >                 work->func(work);         <- calls complete,
> > > effectively frees work
> > >                 smp_wmb();      /* wmb worker-b0 paired with flush-b1 */
> > >                 work->done_seq = work->queue_seq;   <- overwrites a
> > > new stack object
> > >                 smp_mb();       /* mb worker-b1 paired with flush-b0 */
> > >                 if (atomic_read(&work->flushing))
> > >                         wake_up_all(&work->done);  <- or crashes here
> > > 
> > > These patches fix the problem by not accessing work after work->func
> > > is called, and should be backported to stable.  They apply cleanly to
> > > 3.4.10.  Upstream commits are 9a2e03d8ed518a61154f18d83d6466628e519f94
> > > and 46f3d976213452350f9d10b0c2780c2681f7075b.
> > 
> > Yeah, you're right.  I wonder why this didn't come up before.  Greg,
> > can you please pick up these two commits?
> 
> Ok, will do, thanks for letting me know.

Now applied, thanks.

greg k-h
--
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/