mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-11 12:28:41 +08:00
rcu: Protect rcu_print_task_exp_stall() ->exp_tasks access
For kernels built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y, the following scenario can result in a NULL-pointer dereference: CPU1 CPU2 rcu_preempt_deferred_qs_irqrestore rcu_print_task_exp_stall if (special.b.blocked) READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks) != NULL raw_spin_lock_rcu_node np = rcu_next_node_entry(t, rnp) if (&t->rcu_node_entry == rnp->exp_tasks) WRITE_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks, np) .... raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node t = list_entry(rnp->exp_tasks->prev, struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry) (if rnp->exp_tasks is NULL, this will dereference a NULL pointer) The problem is that CPU2 accesses the rcu_node structure's->exp_tasks field without holding the rcu_node structure's ->lock and CPU2 did not observe CPU1's change to rcu_node structure's ->exp_tasks in time. Therefore, if CPU1 sets rcu_node structure's->exp_tasks pointer to NULL, then CPU2 might dereference that NULL pointer. This commit therefore holds the rcu_node structure's ->lock while accessing that structure's->exp_tasks field. [ paulmck: Apply Frederic Weisbecker feedback. ] Acked-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org> Signed-off-by: Zqiang <qiang1.zhang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
7a29fb4a47
commit
3c1566bca3
@ -803,9 +803,11 @@ static int rcu_print_task_exp_stall(struct rcu_node *rnp)
|
||||
int ndetected = 0;
|
||||
struct task_struct *t;
|
||||
|
||||
if (!READ_ONCE(rnp->exp_tasks))
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
raw_spin_lock_irqsave_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
|
||||
if (!rnp->exp_tasks) {
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore_rcu_node(rnp, flags);
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
t = list_entry(rnp->exp_tasks->prev,
|
||||
struct task_struct, rcu_node_entry);
|
||||
list_for_each_entry_continue(t, &rnp->blkd_tasks, rcu_node_entry) {
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user