Hi Yihao-
> On Apr 5, 2020, at 1:57 PM, Yihao Wu <wuyihao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Deleting list entry within hlist_for_each_entry_safe is not safe unless
> next pointer (tmp) is protected too. It's not, because once hash_lock
> is released, cache_clean may delete the entry that tmp points to. Then
> cache_purge can walk to a deleted entry and tries to double free it.
>
> Fix this bug by holding only the deleted entry's reference.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yihao Wu <wuyihao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v1->v2: Use Neil's better solution
> v2->v3: Fix a checkscript warning
>
> net/sunrpc/cache.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/cache.c b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> index af0ddd28b081..b445874e8e2f 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/cache.c
> @@ -541,7 +541,9 @@ void cache_purge(struct cache_detail *detail)
> dprintk("RPC: %d entries in %s cache\n", detail->entries, detail->name);
> for (i = 0; i < detail->hash_size; i++) {
> head = &detail->hash_table[i];
> - hlist_for_each_entry_safe(ch, tmp, head, cache_list) {
If review/testing shows you need to respin this patch, I note that "tmp" is
now unused and should be removed. I've pulled v3 into my testing branch and
made that minor change. Thanks!
> + while (!hlist_empty(head)) {
> + ch = hlist_entry(head->first, struct cache_head,
> + cache_list);
> sunrpc_begin_cache_remove_entry(ch, detail);
> spin_unlock(&detail->hash_lock);
> sunrpc_end_cache_remove_entry(ch, detail);
> --
> 2.20.1.2432.ga663e714
--
Chuck Lever
