Re: [PATCH v7 10/10] lib/dlock-list: Fix use-after-unlock problem in dlist_for_each_entry_safe()

[Boqun Feng]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:06:40AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 27-10-17 16:10:53, Waiman Long wrote:
> > The dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro in include/linux/dlock-list has
> > a use-after-unlock problem where racing condition can happen because
> > of a lack of spinlock protection.  Fortunately, this macro is not
> > currently being used in the kernel.
> > 
> > This patch changes the dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro so that the
> > call to __dlock_list_next_list() is deferred until the next entry is
> > being used. That should eliminate the use-after-unlock problem.
> > 

Better than what I proposed, thanks for looking into this!

> > Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <longman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Looks good to me. You can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> 

Also mine FWIW:

Reviewed-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@xxxxxxxxx>

Regards,
Boqun

> 								Honza
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  include/linux/dlock-list.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dlock-list.h b/include/linux/dlock-list.h
> > index 02c5f4d..f4b7657 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dlock-list.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dlock-list.h
> > @@ -191,17 +191,17 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /**
> > - * dlock_list_first_entry - get the first element from a list
> > + * dlock_list_next_list_entry - get first element from next list in iterator
> >   * @iter  : The dlock list iterator.
> > - * @type  : The type of the struct this is embedded in.
> > + * @pos   : A variable of the struct that is embedded in.
> >   * @member: The name of the dlock_list_node within the struct.
> > - * Return : Pointer to the next entry or NULL if all the entries are iterated.
> > + * Return : Pointer to first entry or NULL if all the lists are iterated.
> >   */
> > -#define dlock_list_first_entry(iter, type, member)			\
> > +#define dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos, member)			\
> >  	({								\
> >  		struct dlock_list_node *_n;				\
> >  		_n = __dlock_list_next_entry(NULL, iter);		\
> > -		_n ? list_entry(_n, type, member) : NULL;		\
> > +		_n ? list_entry(_n, typeof(*pos), member) : NULL;	\
> >  	})
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
> >   * This iteration function is designed to be used in a while loop.
> >   */
> >  #define dlist_for_each_entry(pos, iter, member)				\
> > -	for (pos = dlock_list_first_entry(iter, typeof(*(pos)), member);\
> > +	for (pos = dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos, member);	\
> >  	     pos != NULL;						\
> >  	     pos = dlock_list_next_entry(pos, iter, member))
> >  
> > @@ -245,14 +245,20 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
> >   * This iteration macro is safe with respect to list entry removal.
> >   * However, it cannot correctly iterate newly added entries right after the
> >   * current one.
> > + *
> > + * The call to __dlock_list_next_list() is deferred until the next entry
> > + * is being iterated to avoid use-after-unlock problem.
> >   */
> >  #define dlist_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, iter, member)			\
> > -	for (pos = dlock_list_first_entry(iter, typeof(*(pos)), member);\
> > +	for (pos = NULL;						\
> >  	    ({								\
> > -		bool _b = (pos != NULL);				\
> > -		if (_b)							\
> > -			n = dlock_list_next_entry(pos, iter, member);	\
> > -		_b;							\
> > +		if (!pos ||						\
> > +		   (&(pos)->member.list == &(iter)->entry->list))	\
> > +			pos = dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos,	\
> > +							 member);	\
> > +		if (pos)						\
> > +			n = list_next_entry(pos, member.list);		\
> > +		pos;							\
> >  	    });								\
> >  	    pos = n)
> >  
> > -- 
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> > 
> -- 
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature