On 09/10/2012 06:46 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:59:18PM +0530, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote:
>> On 07/23/2012 05:10 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 09:15:05AM +0800, Gao feng wrote:
>>>> 于 2012年07月20日 00:27, Srivatsa S. Bhat 写道:
>>>>> After commit ef209f15 (net: cgroup: fix access the unallocated memory in
>>>>> netprio cgroup), boot fails with the following NULL pointer dereference:
>>>>>
>> [...]
>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>> [<ffffffff81b1cb78>] cgroup_init_subsys+0x83/0x169
>>>>> [<ffffffff81b1ce13>] cgroup_init+0x36/0x119
>>>>> [<ffffffff81affef7>] start_kernel+0x3ba/0x3ef
>>>>> [<ffffffff81aff95b>] ? kernel_init+0x27b/0x27b
>>>>> [<ffffffff81aff356>] x86_64_start_reservations+0x131/0x136
>>>>> [<ffffffff81aff45e>] x86_64_start_kernel+0x103/0x112
>>>>> RIP [<ffffffff8145e8d6>] cgrp_create+0xf6/0x190
>>>>> RSP <ffffffff81a01ea8>
>>>>> CR2: 0000000000000698
>>>>> ---[ end trace a7919e7f17c0a725 ]---
>>>>> Kernel panic - not syncing: Attempted to kill the idle task!
>>>>>
>>>>> The code corresponds to:
>>>>>
>>>>> update_netdev_tables():
>>>>> for_each_netdev(&init_net, dev) {
>>>>> map = rtnl_dereference(dev->priomap); <---- HERE
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The list head is initialized in netdev_init(), which is called much
>>>>> later than cgrp_create(). So the problem is that we are calling
>>>>> update_netdev_tables() way too early (in cgrp_create()), which will
>>>>> end up traversing the not-yet-circular linked list. So at some point,
>>>>> the dev pointer will become NULL and hence dev->priomap becomes an
>>>>> invalid access.
>>>>>
>>>>> To fix this, just remove the update_netdev_tables() function entirely,
>>>>> since it appears that write_update_netdev_table() will handle things
>>>>> just fine.
>>>>
>>>> The reason I add update_netdev_tables in cgrp_create is to avoid additional
>>>> bound checkings when we accessing the dev->priomap.priomap.
>>>>
>>>> Eric,can we revert this commit 91c68ce2b26319248a32d7baa1226f819d283758
>>>> now?
>>>> I think it's safe enough to access priomap without bound check.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think its probably safe, yes, but lets leave it there for just a bit.
>>> Its not
>>> hurting anything, and I'd like to look into getting Srivatsa' patch in
>>> first.
>>
>> Hi Neil,
>>
>> Did you get around to look into this again?
>>
> I haven't looked at it specifically no, I apologize. That said I think the
> other changes that went in back in that time frame have had time to soak, and
> looking at the way we current update the priomap table, I think its safe for
> us
> to remove the update_netdev_table call and definition. If you repost your
> patch, I'll ack it.
>
Cool! I'll repost the patch, along with another small improvement that I
happened
to observe, as a separate patch. Thanks!
Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
