[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:28 PM, Jens Axboe <> wrote:
> It has to be the latter bfqq->dispatched increment, as those are
> transient (and bfqd is not).

Yeah, and I see a lot of comments around the lifetime of rq and bfqq,
so I assume something is not being locked correctly.

#define RQ_BFQQ(rq) ((rq)->elv.priv[1])

static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
struct bfq_data *bfqd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
struct request *rq = NULL;
struct bfq_queue *bfqq = NULL;

if (!list_empty(&bfqd->dispatch)) {
rq = list_first_entry(&bfqd->dispatch, struct request,

bfqq = RQ_BFQQ(rq);

if (bfqq) {
* Increment counters here, because this
* dispatch does not follow the standard
* dispatch flow (where counters are
* incremented)

I see elv.priv[1] assignments made in a few places -- is it possible
there is some kind of uninitialized-but-not-NULL state that can leak
in there?

bfq_prepare_request() assigns elv.priv[1], and bfq_insert_request()
only checks that it's non-NULL (if at all) in one case. Can
bfq_insert_request() get called without bfq_prepare_request() being
called first?


Kees Cook
Pixel Security

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-17 22:46    [W:0.043 / U:19.964 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site