On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:46 AM, Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2018/6/21 11:38, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 11:07:14AM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>>>
>>> The kernel may sleep with holding a spinlock.
>>> The function call path (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16.7 is:
>>>
>>> [FUNC] remove_element(GFP_KERNEL)
>>> mm/mempool.c, 250: remove_element in mempool_resize
>>> mm/mempool.c, 247: _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in mempool_resize
>>>
>>> To fix this bug, GFP_KERNEL is replaced with GFP_ATOMIC.
>>>
>>> This bug is found by my static analysis tool (DSAC-2) and checked by
>>> my code review.
>>
>> But ... we don't use the flags argument.
>>
>> static void *remove_element(mempool_t *pool, gfp_t flags)
>> {
>> void *element = pool->elements[--pool->curr_nr];
>>
>> BUG_ON(pool->curr_nr < 0);
>> kasan_unpoison_element(pool, element, flags);
>> check_element(pool, element);
>> return element;
>> }
>>
>> ...
>>
>> static void kasan_unpoison_element(mempool_t *pool, void *element, gfp_t
>> flags)
>> {
>> if (pool->alloc == mempool_alloc_slab || pool->alloc ==
>> mempool_kmalloc)
>> kasan_unpoison_slab(element);
>> if (pool->alloc == mempool_alloc_pages)
>> kasan_alloc_pages(element, (unsigned
>> long)pool->pool_data);
>> }
>>
>> So the correct patch would just remove this argument to remove_element()
>> and
>> kasan_unpoison_element()?
>
>
> Yes, I also find this.
> I can submit a patch that removes the flag in:
> Definitions of kasan_unpoison_element() and remove_element()
> Three calls to remove_element() and one call to kasan_unpoison_element() in
> mempool.c.
>
> Do you think it is okay?
Hi Jia-Ju,
Removing an unused argument within a single file looks good to me.
