From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
BIOS Google 01/01/2011
Call Trace:
__dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
dump_stack+0x18f/0x20d lib/dump_stack.c:118
check_preemption_disabled+0x128/0x130 lib/smp_processor_id.c:48
tipc_aead_tfm_next net/tipc/crypto.c:402 [inline]
tipc_aead_encrypt net/tipc/crypto.c:639 [inline]
tipc_crypto_xmit+0x80a/0x2790 net/tipc/crypto.c:1605
tipc_bearer_xmit_skb+0x180/0x3f0 net/tipc/bearer.c:523
tipc_enable_bearer+0xb1d/0xdc0 net/tipc/bearer.c:331
__tipc_nl_bearer_enable+0x2bf/0x390 net/tipc/bearer.c:995
__tipc_nl_compat_doit net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:361 [inline]
tipc_nl_compat_doit+0x440/0x640 net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:383
tipc_nl_compat_handle net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:1268 [inline]
tipc_nl_compat_recv+0x4ef/0xb40 net/tipc/netlink_compat.c:1311
genl_family_rcv_msg_doit net/netlink/genetlink.c:669 [inline]
genl_family_rcv_msg net/netlink/genetlink.c:714 [inline]
genl_rcv_msg+0x61d/0x980 net/netlink/genetlink.c:731
netlink_rcv_skb+0x15a/0x430 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:2469
genl_rcv+0x24/0x40 net/netlink/genetlink.c:742
netlink_unicast_kernel net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1303 [inline]
netlink_unicast+0x533/0x7d0 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1329
netlink_sendmsg+0x856/0xd90 net/netlink/af_netlink.c:1918
sock_sendmsg_nosec net/socket.c:652 [inline]
sock_sendmsg+0xcf/0x120 net/socket.c:672
____sys_sendmsg+0x6e8/0x810 net/socket.c:2352
___sys_sendmsg+0xf3/0x170 net/socket.c:2406
__sys_sendmsg+0xe5/0x1b0 net/socket.c:2439
do_syscall_64+0x60/0xe0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:384
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
RIP: 0033:0x4476a9
Code: Bad RIP value.
RSP: 002b:00007fff2b6d5168 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000002e
RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 000000000000
Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
Reported-by: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
---
v1->v2:
add fixes tags.
net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
--- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
+++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
@@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
*/
static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
{
- struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
*tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
+ put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
}
--
2.24.1
On 7/14/20 1:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
>
> CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
> BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>
> Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
> Reported-by: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> add fixes tags.
>
> net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> @@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
> */
> static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
> {
> - struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> + struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
>
> *tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
> + put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
> return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
> }
>
>
You have not explained why this was safe.
This seems to hide a real bug.
Presumably callers of this function should have disable preemption, and maybe interrupts as well.
Right after put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry), this thread could migrate to another cpu, and still access
data owned by the old cpu.
________________________________________
??????: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
????ʱ??: 2020??7??14?? 22:15
?ռ???: Zhang, Qiang; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xue, Ying
????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
????: Re: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
On 7/14/20 1:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
>
> CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
> BIOS Google 01/01/2011
>
> Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
> Reported-by: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> add fixes tags.
>
> net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> @@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
> */
> static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
> {
> - struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> + struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
>
> *tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
> + put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
> return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
> }
>
>
> You have not explained why this was safe.
>
> This seems to hide a real bug.
>
> Presumably callers of this function should have disable preemption, and maybe > interrupts as well.
>
>Right after put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry), this thread could migrate to another cpu, >and still access
>data owned by the old cpu.
Thanks for you suggest, I will check code again.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qiang <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:13 AM
> To: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tuong Tong Lien
> <[email protected]>; Xue, Ying <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: 回复: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> 发件人: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
> 发送时间: 2020年7月14日 22:15
> 收件人: Zhang, Qiang; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Xue, Ying
> 抄送: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> 主题: Re: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> On 7/14/20 1:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> >
> > CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
> > BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> >
> > Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
> > Reported-by: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > add fixes tags.
> >
> > net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
> > --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > @@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
> > */
> > static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
> > {
> > - struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> > + struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> >
> > *tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
> > + put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
> > return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
> > }
> >
> >
>
> > You have not explained why this was safe.
> >
> > This seems to hide a real bug.
> >
> > Presumably callers of this function should have disable preemption, and maybe > interrupts as well.
> >
> >Right after put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry), this thread could migrate to another cpu, >and still access
> >data owned by the old cpu.
>
> Thanks for you suggest, I will check code again.
>
Actually, last week I sent a similar patch to tipc-discussion which covers the
case as well (there is also another place causing the same issue...). If you
don't mind, you can take a look at below (just copied/pasted).
BR/Tuong
-----Original Message-----
From: Tuong Tong Lien <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 5:11 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: tipc-dek <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/5] tipc: fix using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
The 'this_cpu_ptr()' is used to obtain the AEAD key' TFM on the current
CPU for encryption, however the execution can be preemptible since it's
actually user-space context, so the 'using smp_processor_id() in
preemptible' has been observed.
We fix the issue by using the 'get/put_cpu_ptr()' API which consists of
a 'preempt_disable()' instead.
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <[email protected]>
---
net/tipc/crypto.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
index c8c47fc72653..1827ce4fac5d 100644
--- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
+++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
@@ -326,7 +326,8 @@ static void tipc_aead_free(struct rcu_head *rp)
if (aead->cloned) {
tipc_aead_put(aead->cloned);
} else {
- head = *this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ head = *get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ put_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
list_for_each_entry_safe(tfm_entry, tmp, &head->list, list) {
crypto_free_aead(tfm_entry->tfm);
list_del(&tfm_entry->list);
@@ -399,10 +400,15 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
*/
static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
{
- struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry;
+ struct crypto_aead *tfm;
+ tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
*tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
- return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ tfm = (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
+
+ return tfm;
}
/**
--
2.13.7
________________________________________
??????: Tuong Tong Lien <[email protected]>
????ʱ??: 2020??7??15?? 11:53
?ռ???: Zhang, Qiang; Eric Dumazet; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xue, Ying
????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
????: RE: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qiang <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:13 AM
> To: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tuong Tong Lien
> <[email protected]>; Xue, Ying <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: ?ظ?: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> ??????: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
> ????ʱ??: 2020??7??14?? 22:15
> ?ռ???: Zhang, Qiang; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Xue, Ying
> ????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> ????: Re: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> On 7/14/20 1:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> >
> > CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
> > BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> >
> > Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
> > Reported-by: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > add fixes tags.
> >
> > net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
> > --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > @@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
> > */
> > static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
> > {
> > - struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> > + struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> >
> > *tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
> > + put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
> > return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
> > }
> >
> >
>
> > You have not explained why this was safe.
> >
> > This seems to hide a real bug.
> >
> > Presumably callers of this function should have disable preemption, and maybe > interrupts as well.
> >
> >Right after put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry), this thread could migrate to another cpu, >and still access
> >data owned by the old cpu.
>
> Thanks for you suggest, I will check code again.
>
>Actually, last week I sent a similar patch to tipc-discussion which covers the
>case as well (there is also another place causing the same issue...). If you
>don't mind, you can take a look at below (just copied/pasted).
>BR/Tuong
Hi Tuong Tong Lien
The tipc_aead_free is RCU callback, this func is called in softirq context which
preemption has been banned
so should not add preempt_disable/enable.
thanks
Zhang Qiang
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tuong Tong Lien <[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 5:11 PM
>To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Cc: tipc-dek <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/5] tipc: fix using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
>
>The 'this_cpu_ptr()' is used to obtain the AEAD key' TFM on the current
CPU for encryption, however the execution can be preemptible since it's
actually user-space context, so the 'using smp_processor_id() in
preemptible' has been observed.
We fix the issue by using the 'get/put_cpu_ptr()' API which consists of
a 'preempt_disable()' instead.
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <[email protected]>
---
net/tipc/crypto.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
index c8c47fc72653..1827ce4fac5d 100644
--- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
+++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
@@ -326,7 +326,8 @@ static void tipc_aead_free(struct rcu_head *rp)
if (aead->cloned) {
tipc_aead_put(aead->cloned);
} else {
- head = *this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ head = *get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ put_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
list_for_each_entry_safe(tfm_entry, tmp, &head->list, list) {
crypto_free_aead(tfm_entry->tfm);
list_del(&tfm_entry->list);
@@ -399,10 +400,15 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
*/
static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
{
- struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry;
+ struct crypto_aead *tfm;
+ tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
*tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
- return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ tfm = (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
+
+ return tfm;
}
/**
--
2.13.7
________________________________________
??????: Zhang, Qiang <[email protected]>
????ʱ??: 2020??7??15?? 13:27
?ռ???: Tuong Tong Lien; Eric Dumazet; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xue, Ying
????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
????: ?ظ?: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
________________________________________
??????: Tuong Tong Lien <[email protected]>
????ʱ??: 2020??7??15?? 11:53
?ռ???: Zhang, Qiang; Eric Dumazet; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Xue, Ying
????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
????: RE: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zhang, Qiang <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 9:13 AM
> To: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Tuong Tong Lien
> <[email protected]>; Xue, Ying <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: ?ظ?: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> ??????: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
> ????ʱ??: 2020??7??14?? 22:15
> ?ռ???: Zhang, Qiang; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; Xue, Ying
> ????: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
> ????: Re: [PATCH v2] tipc: Don't using smp_processor_id() in preemptible code
>
>
>
> On 7/14/20 1:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> >
> > CPU: 0 PID: 6801 Comm: syz-executor201 Not tainted 5.8.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
> > BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> >
> > Fixes: fc1b6d6de2208 ("tipc: introduce TIPC encryption & authentication")
> > Reported-by: [email protected]
> > Signed-off-by: Zhang Qiang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > v1->v2:
> > add fixes tags.
> >
> > net/tipc/crypto.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > index 8c47ded2edb6..520af0afe1b3 100644
> > --- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > +++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
> > @@ -399,9 +399,10 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
> > */
> > static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
> > {
> > - struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> > + struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
> >
> > *tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
> > + put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
> > return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
> > }
> >
> >
>
> > You have not explained why this was safe.
> >
> > This seems to hide a real bug.
> >
> > Presumably callers of this function should have disable preemption, and maybe > interrupts as well.
> >
> >Right after put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry), this thread could migrate to another cpu, >and still access
> >data owned by the old cpu.
>
> Thanks for you suggest, I will check code again.
>
>Actually, last week I sent a similar patch to tipc-discussion which covers the
>case as well (there is also another place causing the same issue...). If you
>don't mind, you can take a look at below (just copied/pasted).
>BR/Tuong
>Hi Tuong Tong Lien
>The tipc_aead_free is RCU callback, this func is called in softirq context which
>preemption has been banned
>so should not add preempt_disable/enable.
>thanks
>Zhang Qiang
sorry there are some questions in my reply. the tipc_aead_free function may also be called in the thread context. if enable CONFIG_RCU_BOOST
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Tuong Tong Lien <[email protected]>
>Sent: Friday, July 10, 2020 5:11 PM
>To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
>Cc: tipc-dek <[email protected]>
Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/5] tipc: fix using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
>
>The 'this_cpu_ptr()' is used to obtain the AEAD key' TFM on the current
CPU for encryption, however the execution can be preemptible since it's
actually user-space context, so the 'using smp_processor_id() in
preemptible' has been observed.
We fix the issue by using the 'get/put_cpu_ptr()' API which consists of
a 'preempt_disable()' instead.
Signed-off-by: Tuong Lien <[email protected]>
---
net/tipc/crypto.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/tipc/crypto.c b/net/tipc/crypto.c
index c8c47fc72653..1827ce4fac5d 100644
--- a/net/tipc/crypto.c
+++ b/net/tipc/crypto.c
@@ -326,7 +326,8 @@ static void tipc_aead_free(struct rcu_head *rp)
if (aead->cloned) {
tipc_aead_put(aead->cloned);
} else {
- head = *this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ head = *get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ put_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
list_for_each_entry_safe(tfm_entry, tmp, &head->list, list) {
crypto_free_aead(tfm_entry->tfm);
list_del(&tfm_entry->list);
@@ -399,10 +400,15 @@ static void tipc_aead_users_set(struct tipc_aead __rcu *aead, int val)
*/
static struct crypto_aead *tipc_aead_tfm_next(struct tipc_aead *aead)
{
- struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry = this_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
+ struct tipc_tfm **tfm_entry;
+ struct crypto_aead *tfm;
+ tfm_entry = get_cpu_ptr(aead->tfm_entry);
*tfm_entry = list_next_entry(*tfm_entry, list);
- return (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ tfm = (*tfm_entry)->tfm;
+ put_cpu_ptr(tfm_entry);
+
+ return tfm;
}
/**
--
2.13.7
* I find the patch subject improvable.
* Please add a change description for the desired commit.
Regards,
Markus