The dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro in include/linux/dlock-list has
a use-after-unlock problem where racing condition can happen because
of a lack of spinlock protection.  Fortunately, this macro is not
currently being used in the kernel.

This patch changes the dlist_for_each_entry_safe() macro so that the
call to __dlock_list_next_list() is deferred until the next entry is
being used. That should eliminate the use-after-unlock problem.

Reported-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.f...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <long...@redhat.com>
---
 include/linux/dlock-list.h | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/dlock-list.h b/include/linux/dlock-list.h
index 02c5f4d..f4b7657 100644
--- a/include/linux/dlock-list.h
+++ b/include/linux/dlock-list.h
@@ -191,17 +191,17 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
 }
 
 /**
- * dlock_list_first_entry - get the first element from a list
+ * dlock_list_next_list_entry - get first element from next list in iterator
  * @iter  : The dlock list iterator.
- * @type  : The type of the struct this is embedded in.
+ * @pos   : A variable of the struct that is embedded in.
  * @member: The name of the dlock_list_node within the struct.
- * Return : Pointer to the next entry or NULL if all the entries are iterated.
+ * Return : Pointer to first entry or NULL if all the lists are iterated.
  */
-#define dlock_list_first_entry(iter, type, member)                     \
+#define dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos, member)                  \
        ({                                                              \
                struct dlock_list_node *_n;                             \
                _n = __dlock_list_next_entry(NULL, iter);               \
-               _n ? list_entry(_n, type, member) : NULL;               \
+               _n ? list_entry(_n, typeof(*pos), member) : NULL;       \
        })
 
 /**
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
  * This iteration function is designed to be used in a while loop.
  */
 #define dlist_for_each_entry(pos, iter, member)                                
\
-       for (pos = dlock_list_first_entry(iter, typeof(*(pos)), member);\
+       for (pos = dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos, member);       \
             pos != NULL;                                               \
             pos = dlock_list_next_entry(pos, iter, member))
 
@@ -245,14 +245,20 @@ extern void dlock_list_add(struct dlock_list_node *node,
  * This iteration macro is safe with respect to list entry removal.
  * However, it cannot correctly iterate newly added entries right after the
  * current one.
+ *
+ * The call to __dlock_list_next_list() is deferred until the next entry
+ * is being iterated to avoid use-after-unlock problem.
  */
 #define dlist_for_each_entry_safe(pos, n, iter, member)                        
\
-       for (pos = dlock_list_first_entry(iter, typeof(*(pos)), member);\
+       for (pos = NULL;                                                \
            ({                                                          \
-               bool _b = (pos != NULL);                                \
-               if (_b)                                                 \
-                       n = dlock_list_next_entry(pos, iter, member);   \
-               _b;                                                     \
+               if (!pos ||                                             \
+                  (&(pos)->member.list == &(iter)->entry->list))       \
+                       pos = dlock_list_next_list_entry(iter, pos,     \
+                                                        member);       \
+               if (pos)                                                \
+                       n = list_next_entry(pos, member.list);          \
+               pos;                                                    \
            });                                                         \
            pos = n)
 
-- 
1.8.3.1

Reply via email to