2014-02-11 19:43:33

by Trond Myklebust

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix potential memory scribble in xprt_free_bc_request()

The call to xprt_free_allocation() will call list_del() on
req->rq_bc_pa_list, which is not attached to a list.
This patch moves the list_del() out of xprt_free_allocation()
and into those callers that need it.

Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
---
net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
index 890a29912d5a..e860d4f7ed2a 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
@@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ static void xprt_free_allocation(struct rpc_rqst *req)
free_page((unsigned long)xbufp->head[0].iov_base);
xbufp = &req->rq_snd_buf;
free_page((unsigned long)xbufp->head[0].iov_base);
- list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
kfree(req);
}

@@ -168,8 +167,10 @@ out_free:
/*
* Memory allocation failed, free the temporary list
*/
- list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &tmp_list, rq_bc_pa_list)
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &tmp_list, rq_bc_pa_list) {
+ list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
xprt_free_allocation(req);
+ }

dprintk("RPC: setup backchannel transport failed\n");
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ void xprt_destroy_backchannel(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned int max_reqs)
xprt_dec_alloc_count(xprt, max_reqs);
list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &xprt->bc_pa_list, rq_bc_pa_list) {
dprintk("RPC: req=%p\n", req);
+ list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
xprt_free_allocation(req);
if (--max_reqs == 0)
break;
--
1.8.5.3



2014-02-12 02:12:24

by shaobingqing

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix potential memory scribble in xprt_free_bc_request()

2014-02-12 3:43 GMT+08:00 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>:
> The call to xprt_free_allocation() will call list_del() on
> req->rq_bc_pa_list, which is not attached to a list.

Since the type of req->rq_bc_pa_list is struct list_head, I think it
is right on the tmp_list or
the xprt->bc_pa_list. Do I misunderstand sth?

> This patch moves the list_del() out of xprt_free_allocation()
> and into those callers that need it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> ---
> net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> index 890a29912d5a..e860d4f7ed2a 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/backchannel_rqst.c
> @@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ static void xprt_free_allocation(struct rpc_rqst *req)
> free_page((unsigned long)xbufp->head[0].iov_base);
> xbufp = &req->rq_snd_buf;
> free_page((unsigned long)xbufp->head[0].iov_base);
> - list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
> kfree(req);
> }
>
> @@ -168,8 +167,10 @@ out_free:
> /*
> * Memory allocation failed, free the temporary list
> */
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &tmp_list, rq_bc_pa_list)
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &tmp_list, rq_bc_pa_list) {
> + list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
> xprt_free_allocation(req);
> + }
>
> dprintk("RPC: setup backchannel transport failed\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ void xprt_destroy_backchannel(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, unsigned int max_reqs)
> xprt_dec_alloc_count(xprt, max_reqs);
> list_for_each_entry_safe(req, tmp, &xprt->bc_pa_list, rq_bc_pa_list) {
> dprintk("RPC: req=%p\n", req);
> + list_del(&req->rq_bc_pa_list);
> xprt_free_allocation(req);
> if (--max_reqs == 0)
> break;
> --
> 1.8.5.3
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

2014-02-12 03:47:10

by Trond Myklebust

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix potential memory scribble in xprt_free_bc_request()


On Feb 11, 2014, at 21:12, shaobingqing <[email protected]> wrote:

> 2014-02-12 3:43 GMT+08:00 Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>:
>> The call to xprt_free_allocation() will call list_del() on
>> req->rq_bc_pa_list, which is not attached to a list.
>
> Since the type of req->rq_bc_pa_list is struct list_head, I think it
> is right on the tmp_list or
> the xprt->bc_pa_list. Do I misunderstand sth?

Not when xprt_free_bc_request() calls xprt_free_allocation().

>> This patch moves the list_del() out of xprt_free_allocation()
>> and into those callers that need it.

?and the point is that we do not add the list_del() to xprt_free_bc_request().

_________________________________
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, PrimaryData
[email protected]