Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754279AbZAJJQp (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:16:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752230AbZAJJQ2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:16:28 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:43782 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752031AbZAJJQ0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:16:26 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:15:57 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Stefan Richter Cc: dcm@acm.org, Nadia Derbey , linux1394-devel , linux-kernel , "Paul E. McKenney" , Manfred Spraul Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/idr.c: Zero memory properly in idr_remove_all Message-Id: <20090110011557.9d94e111.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <49686465.70501@s5r6.in-berlin.de> References: <1231571060.3538.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <49686465.70501@s5r6.in-berlin.de> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3538 Lines: 96 On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:03:33 +0100 Stefan Richter wrote: > David Moore wrote: > > From: David Moore > > > > The idr_remove_all() function returns unused slabs to the kmem cache, > > but needs to zero them first or else they will be uninitialized upon > > next use. This fixes crashes which have been observed in the firewire > > subsystem. > > hm. > > > --- > > lib/idr.c | 16 +++++++++++++++- > > 1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/idr.c b/lib/idr.c > > index 1c4f928..69c3455 100644 > > --- a/lib/idr.c > > +++ b/lib/idr.c > > @@ -65,6 +65,20 @@ static inline void free_layer(struct idr_layer *p) > > call_rcu(&p->rcu_head, idr_layer_rcu_free); > > } > > > > +static void idr_layer_rcu_free_zero(struct rcu_head *head) > > +{ > > + struct idr_layer *layer; > > + > > + layer = container_of(head, struct idr_layer, rcu_head); > > + memset(layer, 0, sizeof(struct idr_layer)); > > + kmem_cache_free(idr_layer_cache, layer); > > +} > > + > > +static inline void free_layer_zero(struct idr_layer *p) > > +{ > > + call_rcu(&p->rcu_head, idr_layer_rcu_free_zero); > > +} > > + > > /* only called when idp->lock is held */ > > static void __move_to_free_list(struct idr *idp, struct idr_layer *p) > > { > > @@ -462,7 +476,7 @@ void idr_remove_all(struct idr *idp) > > id += 1 << n; > > while (n < fls(id)) { > > if (p) > > - free_layer(p); > > + free_layer_zero(p); > > n += IDR_BITS; > > p = *--paa; > > } > > Nadia, > > it appears as if post-2.6.26 commit > cf481c20c476ad2c0febdace9ce23f5a4db19582 "idr: make idr_remove rcu-safe" > was buggy as it removed a memset(...0...) from idr_remove_all() without > any obvious replacement. And this patch fixes it. Is this correct? > > This was observed by David in Fedora 2.6.27.* kernels and in 2.6.28, and > I have it seen in vanilla 2.6.28 --- but only after I disabled some > debug kconfig options. The trigger for the bug is not the existing > usage of idr in drivers/firewire/, but a new usage which is not yet in > mainline. More details: > http://marc.info/?l=linux1394-devel&m=123140439522563 > > The symptom is that after a few destructions of idr trees (which involve > idr_remove_all() of course), there appear spurious idr entries in > subsequently newly created idr trees. These spurious entries then crash > the driver when it iterates over them. > > Andrew, > > the triggering code are feature additions which I vaguely hoped of still > getting ready for pull before 2.6.29-rc1. I see as my options now > - to queue up this lib/idr fix --- if reviewers like it --- together > with my drivers/firewire updates for a pull request very very soon, > - to send my firewire updates independently of this idr patch but > with a simple temporary workaround at the new idr using driver code, > - to wait with these firewire features for 2.6.30. > It's about these updates: > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/ieee1394/linux1394-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=test Are we sure that all the other callers of free_layer() are freeing zeroed objects? It would be cleaner, safer and quite possibly faster to remove the constructor altogether and use kmem_cache_zalloc() to allocate new objects. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/