lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vfs: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in inode_permission()
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:45:37 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> > static void inode_free_security(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > struct inode_security_struct *isec = inode->i_security;
> > @@ -244,8 +252,7 @@ static void inode_free_security(struct i
> > list_del_init(&isec->list);
> > spin_unlock(&sbsec->isec_lock);
> >
> > - inode->i_security = NULL;
> > - kmem_cache_free(sel_inode_cache, isec);
> > + call_rcu(&isec->rcu, inode_free_rcu);
>
> Does not clearing ->i_security mean that RCU readers can traverse
> this pointer after the invocation of call_rcu()? If so, this is
> problematic. (If something else already prevents readers from getting
> here, no problem.)

This is called when we are about to free the inode. Look at
destroy_inode(). Basically, this is the same as doing:

call_rcu(&isec->rcu, inode_free_rcu);
call_rcu(&inode->i_rcu, i_callback);

Where i_callback() does the free of the inode.

If you can access inode->i_security, after a call_rcu, then you can
also access the inode itself that has just been freed.

Yes, technically, having two separate call_rcu(), the first grace
period can end before the second, but everything to remove the inode
from sight has already been set up before that first call_rcu() is
made. That means when the first call_rcu() is executed, the inode
should already be invisible to the readers.


- Steve

>
> Thanx, Paul
>
> > }
> >


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-01-10 01:41    [W:0.135 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site