On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In cgroup_kill_sb(), root is freed before sb is detached from the list,
> so another sget() may find this sb and call cgroup_test_super(),
> which will access the root that has been freed.
I think that I'd assumed that by the time we get to cgroup_kill_sb()
there's no chance of the sb being resurrected by sget().
If anyone can call cgroup_test_super() on the sb that we're trying to
free, isn't that bad? Since even with this patch we free root just
after calling kill_litter_sb(), if anyone tries to reuse that super
block then they're toast.
Would it be better to set sb->s_fs_info to NULL, before calling
kill_litter_sb(), and have cgroup_test_super() just return 0 for any
sb with a NULL sb->s_fs_info.
Paul
>
> Reported-by: Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> kernel/cgroup.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/cgroup.c b/kernel/cgroup.c
> index 5a54ff4..42fd3f2 100644
> --- a/kernel/cgroup.c
> +++ b/kernel/cgroup.c
> @@ -1122,8 +1122,8 @@ static void cgroup_kill_sb(struct super_block *sb) {
>
> mutex_unlock(&cgroup_mutex);
>
> - kfree(root);
> kill_litter_super(sb);
> + kfree(root);
> }
>
> static struct file_system_type cgroup_fs_type = {
> --
> 1.5.4.rc3
>
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
